Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (Law Firm Gappp, Attorneys Yu Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Dakel et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

December 24, 2015

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the revocation of fraudulent act and the claim for restitution as to each gift contract listed in [Attachment 2. List Nos. 15 to 20 and 22 of the list of donations shall be dismissed.

2. Between Nonparty 1 and the Defendant:

(a) As to the share of 1/2 of the real estate stated in Appendix 1. signed on June 9, 201;

(b) Attached 2. Matters concerning each amount of donation concluded on the date of donation Nos. 5 through 11 of the list of donations;

Each gift contract shall be revoked.

3. The defendant,

A. Nonparty 1 implements the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration made on June 10, 201 under No. 32296, which was received on June 10, 201, with respect to the portion of 1/2 of the real estate listed in Appendix 1.

B. The Plaintiff shall pay 63,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case is finalized to the day of complete payment.

4. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

5. A half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

As indicated in the Disposition Nos. 2 and 3. Each contract on each donation amount entered into between the non-party 1 and the defendant on the date of each donation listed in the Attached 2. List Nos. 1 through 4, 12 through 33 shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 190,420, 156 won and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from the day after the day when the judgment of this case became final to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Status of the parties

From December 14, 2010 to September 18, 2011, Nonparty 1 held office as the representative director and the chief executive officer of the Franchi Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant bank”) and took overall control of the bank’s business, including credit and receipt management, fund management, and execution. The Defendant is Nonparty 1’s spouse.

B. Suspension of business and bankruptcy of the bank of this case

(1) On September 18, 201, the Financial Services Commission designated the instant bank as an insolvent financial institution and issued a business improvement and business suspension order.

(2) On September 7, 2012, the instant bank was declared bankrupt by Seoul Central District Court No. 2012Hahap97, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy of the instant bank.

C. Progress of the criminal trial against Nonparty 1

Nonparty 1, while holding office as the representative director of the instant bank, lent 3 billion won to the said company without being provided with adequate security despite the lack of financial standing and the possibility of recovery. ② On December 29, 2010, in violation of the prohibition of cross-loan by large stockholders, etc. of the mutual savings bank, Nonparty 1 loaned 3 billion won to the said company on December 29, 2010, and ③ in violation of the prohibition of cross-loan by large stockholders, etc. of the said bank, the loans amounting to 2 billion won to 30 billion won to the Domini Corporation under the name of the new Domini Corporation in Korea, the loans amounting to 2 billion won in excess of the loans amounting to 2 billion won. Nonparty 1 was prosecuted as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act, and was sentenced to the appellate court’s dismissal on January 14, 2013 (merger) (Seoul High Court’s appeal).

D. Claims for damages against Nonparty 1

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 1, etc. against the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap510888, and the above court affirmed Nonparty 1’s liability for damages with respect to the loans set forth in the above paragraph (c) (2) on August 13, 2015, and sentenced Nonparty 1 to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay 513,00,000 won jointly and severally with Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4, and 5% per annum from May 3, 2013 to August 13, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 appealed the above judgment, and continue to exist in the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2015Na2049116).

E. Nonparty 1 and Defendant’s specification of transactions

(1) On June 9, 2011, Nonparty 1 entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant on shares of 1/2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the real estate listed in attached Table 1, and completed the registration of co-ownership transfer by the Seoul Western District Court No. 32296, Jun. 10, 201.

(2) Nonparty 1 transferred each donation amount to the Defendant’s bank account (Account No. 2 omitted) and Hyundai Securities Account (Account No. 4 omitted), as indicated in the [Attachment 2. Gift List (hereinafter “Gift”) via its own account (Account No. 1 omitted) and Hyundai Securities Account (Account No. 4 omitted).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Gap's order to submit financial transaction information to Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd., and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant added the part concerning the revocation of fraudulent act and the claim for restitution relating to each gift contract as stated in Articles 15 through 20, and 22 of the list of donations by modifying the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of December 8, 2014 (hereinafter “additional part”), but asserts that the lawsuit on the additional part is unlawful since it was clearly raised one year after the date when the Plaintiff became aware of the fraudulent act.

B. In the exercise of the creditor's right of revocation, the "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirements for the creditor's right of revocation, i.e., the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that he/she would prejudice the creditor. Thus, it is insufficient to say that the debtor merely knows that he/she conducted a disposal act of the property, and it is not sufficient to satisfy the claims completely due to the lack of joint security of claims or lack of joint security already in the situation where the creditor would harm the creditor, and further, it is necessary to inform the debtor of the fact that he/she had the intent to harm the debtor, and the burden of proof as to the lapse of the exclusion period is the other party to the creditor's revocation lawsuit (Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da61280, Jul. 4, 2006; 2013Da58555, Apr. 26, 2013).

C. The Plaintiff’s addition to the purport of the instant gift agreement to the purport of the claim constitutes an additional modification to litigation. According to the fact that the instant bank received a disposition of business suspension from the Financial Services Commission on September 18, 201, the Plaintiff conducted a field investigation on the instant bank from October 31, 201 to March 2, 2012, and completed an investigation into the illegality of the instant bank, the details of unfair loans, and the responsibility of executives, including Nonparty 1, on the instant bank. On September 6, 2012, the Plaintiff sent a notice of the result of investigation of liability and a notice of request for damages to the instant bank’s management, along with the above report. The Plaintiff’s submission of the said report to Nonparty 1 on September 7, 2012, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a bankruptcy trustee on September 15, 2012, and the Plaintiff’s submission of the said additional financial transaction information to Nonparty 3 as well as the Plaintiff’s respective claim on the instant gift agreement.

D. Therefore, the instant supplementary part, which is apparent in the record that the lawsuit was brought after one year has elapsed from the date on which the grounds for revocation of the fraudulent act became known, is unlawful as the passage of the exclusion period.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Formation of preserved claims

(1) In principle, it is required that a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation was created prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that at the time of a fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of a claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future in the near future, and where a claim has been created by realizing the probability in the near future, such claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s

(2) According to the above facts, the non-party 1 committed an illegal act such as participating in illegal loans around December 2, 2010, which is the transfer of each gift to the defendant, and the loan was highly likely to become non-performing loans due to excess of the lending limit, poor collateral, etc., and thus, it was highly probable that the damage was incurred. Since the damage was actually caused by non-party 1 and the claim for the above loan was impossible to be recovered due to delinquency, the damage liability against the bank of this case including the non-party 1 was realized. Thus, even if each disposal act against the defendant was made before the confirmation of the criminal trial against the non-party 1 and the plaintiff's civil lawsuit against the non-party 1, the plaintiff's claim for damages against the non-party 1 can be the preserved

B. Whether the fraudulent act was established

(1) If the purport of the entire argument is added to Gap evidence Nos. 2, 7, and 8 (including additional serial numbers) and the fact inquiry conducted with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the debtor's property content at the time of donation of each amount listed in the list of donations Nos. 5 through 11 from June 9, 2011 to May 3, 201 (including the above real estate donation, and each of the above donations, hereinafter "each of the above donations"), which was set out in the list Nos. 5 through 11 from around April 21, 2011, which was made with respect to the real estate of this case, was recognized as the debtor's debt-backed maximum debt-backed amount of the non-party 1, the debtor's property content at the time of donation of this case, including the above real estate donation, was active property of 5,554 square meters, 1/52,193,800 (based on publicly notified land price), 00,0000 won,000 won.

(2) Furthermore, according to the evidence evidence No. 6, the bank of this case had already attempted to increase its capital several times since 2010, but around March 201, it was suffering from serious operational difficulties, such as decline in the BISD ratio to 1.32%, and eventually, it was acknowledged that the non-party 1 was ordered to suspend its business as an insolvent bank around September 201. It appears that the representative director of the bank of this case was well aware of the above management and financial situation of the bank of this case, and that the non-party 1 was the representative director of the bank of the bank of this case. A disposition of suspending its business was issued on or around April 201, when disposing of the apartment owned by himself and remitted the amount of KRW 70 million including its price, and transferred the share of co-ownership of the real estate of this case, which was jointly owned by his husband and wife, to the defendant without any special reasons, barring any special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the non-party 1's donation of this case to the creditor is a fraudulent act.

(3) However, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, each amount of donation stated in Nos. 1 through 4, 12 through 14, 21, 23, and 33 in the list of donations appears to have been delivered by non-party Nos. 1 to the defendant who is the wife of the benefits received from the bank, etc. of this case in light of the date of remittance, the amount of remittance, and the amount of remittance. Non-party Nos. 1 made a certain monetary transaction only in the amount prior to and after the above transfer, and there is no circumstance to deem that the defendant concealed the money received as above and consumed the money in an abnormal manner, it is difficult to deem that the non-party No. 1 had the intention of harm, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, and therefore,

C. Defendant’s bona fide assertion

Although the Defendant alleged that each of the instant donations was not aware of the fact that it constitutes a fraudulent act, it is insufficient to acknowledge it by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, Nonparty 1 and the Defendant are married couple, Nonparty 1 was well aware of the financial situation of the instant bank as the representative director of the instant bank, and each of the instant donations to Nonparty 1 against the Defendant was concentrated for a short period of time without any particular reason prior to the suspension of business and bankruptcy of the instant bank, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was aware that the said transactions were constituted a fraudulent act.

(d) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Each contract on the amount of each gift entered into between the Defendant and Nonparty 1 on the date of each gift listed in 5 through 11 of the table of gift and the agreement on the instant real estate between the Defendant and Nonparty 1 shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant shall implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of cancelling the registration of the transfer of co-ownership of the instant real estate to Nonparty 1 due to restitution to its original state, and the Plaintiff shall be obliged to pay to the Plaintiff 63,000,000 won (=10,000 won + + KRW 10,000,000 + + KRW 10,000,000 + + KRW 10,000,000 + KRW 5,000 + KRW 5,000,000) due to the date following the conclusion of the judgment of this case to its original state.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the part of the lawsuit in this case concerning the revocation of fraudulent act and the claim for restoration to original state relating to each gift contract as stated in the Nos. 15 through 20, and 22 of the list of the gift in this case is unlawful, the part concerning the revocation of fraudulent act and the claim for restoration to original state relating to each gift contract as stated in the No. 5 through 11 of the list of the real estate and the gift in this case is justified, and the remaining

[Attachment]

Judge Lee Han-hee (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Items 1 to 14, 21, 23 to 33 of the list of gifts

Note 2) Nos. 15 to 20, 22 of the list of gifts

3) Since the bankruptcy declaration of the instant bank and the appointment of the bankruptcy trustee are subsequent to the appointment of the instant bank, the bankruptcy trustee of the instant bank is presumed to handle the said business.

4) According to the evidence Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, on April 20, 201, Nonparty 1 sold to Nonparty 5 the purchase price of ○○○ apartment △△△△△△ KRW 515,00,00,000 in Seoul, which he own. On May 9, 2011, Nonparty 1 remitted the down payment of KRW 52,00,000 (including each of the instant donations) paid according to the said sale to the Defendant (including each of the instant donations). Since it is recognized that the said apartment apartment was set up a right to collateral security, it is recognized that: (a) even if Nonparty 1’s active property is included in Nonparty 1’s active property, active property is KRW 795,693,830,00,000 + KRW 300,005,000,000,000 + KRW 106,005,005,005 won.