1. E Of the KRW 257,487,797 deposited by the Seoul Central District Court No. 23171 in 2018, the Plaintiff KRW 122,573,149.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 27, 2015, F made a donation of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G and second floor H H (hereinafter “instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant donation contract”) to E, one of its children, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on March 31, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants’ respective fraudulent act revocation lawsuit 1) concluded a credit guarantee agreement with F on January 23, 2009; December 22, 2009; December 17, 2014; and April 14, 2015; and on November 11, 2015, the Plaintiff subrogated for the obligation of loans of KRW 293,789,438, to be borne by F to corporate banks by F upon each credit guarantee agreement.

B) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against E, seeking revocation of the instant gift contract and restitution to its original state, with the claim for reimbursement against F as the preserved claim. Following the first instance judgment, the appellate court revoked the instant gift contract within the limit of KRW 243,500,000 on the premise that the amount of joint collateral of the instant real estate was KRW 243,50,000. E paid to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 243,50,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 5% per annum from the day following the final judgment to the day of full payment (Seoul High Court Decision 2017Na202629). The said appellate judgment became final and conclusive on September 22, 2017, the Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) seeking revocation of the instant gift contract and restitution to its original state.

On February 17, 2017, the first instance court rendered a judgment that “the instant donation contract shall be revoked within the scope of KRW 23,594,440. The Plaintiff shall pay to Defendant D 23,594,440 with interest of KRW 23,594,440 with interest of KRW 5% per annum from the day following the conclusion of the judgment to the day of full payment.”

(Seoul Central District Court 2016Gahap528927). The plaintiff is entitled to do so.