1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 26, 2007, C transferred 55/122 shares in the ownership to E and F, among the land of 122 square meters in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”). On August 1, 2011, the Plaintiff imposed and notified C of the transfer income tax of KRW 158,763,310 pertaining thereto (on January 31, 2007; August 31, 2011); and on May 20, 2014, C’s delinquent tax amount of KRW 224,491,00.

B. On July 6, 2009, C withdrawn KRW 93 million from the account of his own national bank (G) as a check, and deposited KRW 43 million in the account of the same day to the dynamics (H) account in the name of Defendant B, the same day, and deposited KRW 50 million in the dynamics account in the name of Defendant A, the name of Defendant A. On July 5, 2010, C withdrawn KRW 10 million from the dynamics account in the name of his own (J) and deposited it to the national bank account in the name of Defendant B (K) on July 6, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Under the Plaintiff’s assertion of Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality Act, the account holder has the right to dispose of the money deposited as the deposit account holder pursuant to the Plaintiff’s claim. The act of depositing money deposited by the tax obligor C in his/her own name on July 6, 2009 and July 6, 2010 with each of the above deposits in the Defendants’ name (hereinafter “instant deposit act”) constitutes a fraudulent act that reduces his/her joint security as a donation, each of the above donation contracts should be revoked, and the Defendants, the beneficiary, are obligated to return each of the above transfers to the Plaintiff due to their restitution.

B. With respect to the obligee seeking revocation of the relevant legal doctrine’s assertion that an act of payment of money to the beneficiary of the obligor is a donation, the beneficiary is arguing that it was received under another name.