1. The contract of donation concluded on July 6, 2012 between the Defendant and B is revoked with respect to C forest land 9124 square meters in Yangsan-si, Yangsan-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Korea Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Savings Bank”) was decided by the Financial Services Commission to suspend its business on May 6, 2012, and was declared bankrupt on April 30, 2013, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy on the same day.

(Seoul Central District Court 2013Hau47). (b)

B served from August 26, 2004 to August 29, 2006 at Korea Savings Bank as D.

B In dealing with the loan business during the above period, due to neglecting the fiduciary duty or duty of loyalty, the Korea Savings Bank incurred a loss of KRW 3.41 billion (A1, 35 pages) to the Korea Savings Bank.

C. A due to the above damage liability, B was in excess of the obligation.

B Co., Ltd. entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant on July 6, 2012 on the land indicated in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition (hereinafter “instant land”) which appears to be its sole property (hereinafter “instant donation agreement”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer stated in Paragraph 2 of the Disposition on July 11, 2012.

(hereinafter “this case’s registration of ownership transfer”). 【No dispute exists, the purport of the entire pleadings, A1, 2, and 3

2. The debtor's act of selling real estate, which is the only property of the judgment, and replacing it with money easily consumed or transferring it to another person free of charge, is presumed to constitute a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring special circumstances. Therefore, the debtor's intent to harm is presumed, and the burden of proof that the purchaser or the transferor did not have bad faith

(Supreme Court Decision 200Da41875 Decided April 24, 2001). Barring any special circumstance, the instant donation agreement constitutes a fraudulent act against creditors including the Plaintiff, and is presumed as an obligor B’s intent to commit a fraudulent act, and is presumed as the beneficiary’s Defendant’s bad faith.

The defendant asserts that the land of this case is not subject to revocation of fraudulent act because it is not subject to the property trusted by the clan B as the property trusted by the clan B to the general creditor.