1.(a)

A donation contract concluded between the defendant and C on June 20, 2017 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C, as of March 2, 2018, did not pay the price by using a credit card issued by the Plaintiff, due to nonperformance of the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the principal KRW 10,98,226, 700, interest rate of KRW 520,313, late payment charge of KRW 7,096,543, total amount of KRW 18,615,782 to the Plaintiff.

B. On June 20, 2017, C entered into a gift agreement with the Defendant, his/her father (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by C (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on July 5, 2017 (hereinafter “instant transfer”).

C around June 20, 2017, there was no active property other than each of the instant real estate, and there was a number of monetary liabilities in addition to the Plaintiff’s obligations.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, fact-finding results against Busan Jin-gu Office, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. At the time of the instant donation agreement, the Plaintiff’s claim for loans against C was established, and thus, the above claim is subject to the obligee’s right of revocation.

B. According to the facts of the recognition of fraudulent act and the intent to commit suicide, C’s act of gratuitous donation to the Defendant, the only property of which is the Defendant, constitutes a fraudulent act by the obligee, barring any special circumstance, and C’s intention and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed.

Although the defendant alleged that he did not know about C's obligations, the defendant did not know about C's fraudulent act, the defendant, who is the beneficiary, should prove that he was guilty of his fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da28819, 28826, Feb. 25, 2010), and there is no evidence to prove it, and even in light of C's relationship with C and the defendant, the above argument by the defendant is

C. According to the conclusion of the lawsuit, the gift agreement entered into between the Defendant and C on June 20, 2017 with respect to each of the instant real estate is a fraudulent act.