1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff is the mother of Nonparty D, and the Defendant is the spouse of the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”).

On June 27, 2014, D and the Deceased, who jointly operated E, agreed to pay KRW 3.5 million as interest per month from the Plaintiff, and borrowed KRW 3.7 million as interest (hereinafter “instant loan”), and a notary public prepared a certificate (Evidence A No. 1) with the document No. 3243 in 2014, 2014, and delivered it to the Plaintiff by a notary public.

On the other hand, on July 30, 2014, the Deceased completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the gift agreement dated July 24, 2014 with respect to each real estate listed in the attached list to the Defendant.

(2) Each of the following items: (a) The above donation contract is "the instant donation contract" and the above registration of transfer of ownership is "the ground for recognition" / [this case's registration of transfer of ownership], (b) Gap (the defendant asserted that D has forged it, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it], (c) No. 2, and (d) No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the only real estate was donated by the deceased to the defendant in excess of his/her obligation, and that the donation contract in this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and that the plaintiff seeks implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration in this case as restitution.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the loan claim of this case, which is the preserved claim, is nonexistent.

3. As seen in the facts based on the determination, the deceased, one of the members of the Plaintiff, is deemed to have borne the instant loan obligation against the Plaintiff, but according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 7 and 8, it is recognized that D’s claim for the instant loan is extinguished by repaying KRW 379 million to the Plaintiff from August 12, 2014 to March 25, 2015. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant loan obligation against the deceased exists cannot be accepted.

In the end, it is eventually.