1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) filed a payment order with B, seeking the repayment of the obligation to acquire money, and the payment order was decided by Seoul Eastern District Court 2012 next to 67362.2) B, on August 2, 2010, upon the Defendant’s failure to repay the obligation to the Plaintiff, entered into a donation contract (hereinafter “instant donation contract”) with respect to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), which is the only property between the Defendant and the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant.

3) Therefore, the Defendant asserts that the instant contract constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the cancellation of the instant contract and the subsequent restitution of ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate is sought. B) The Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit was unlawful by setting the exclusion period. The Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit was filed on October 19, 2015, which was five years after the date when the obligee became aware of the fraudulent act, and within five years from the date when the legal act was committed (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act). It is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed on August 2, 2015, which was five years after the date when the Plaintiff asserted that the instant contract was a fraudulent act.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it has been filed with the lapse of the period of filing a lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act under Article 406(2) of the Civil Act.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is so decided as per Disposition.