1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the case's 6th to 22th to 8th to the court's 6th to the court's 6th to the 6th court's 6th to the 8th court's 6th to the 6th court's 6th court's 6th to the 6th

2. Parts of gardged parts (Articles 6, 22, 8, and 20)

A. The Plaintiff’s defense before the merits of the Defendants asserted that each of the instant donations was a fraudulent act, and sought revocation and restitution against the Defendants.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the said fraudulent act one year after the Republic of Korea knew that each of the instant donations constituted a fraudulent act detrimental to the obligee E, and one year has passed since the Republic of Korea knew that the instant gift constituted a fraudulent act

B. According to Article 406(2) of the Civil Act, a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act ought to be filed within one year from the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation and five years from the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation. Here, “the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation” refers to the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation, i.e., the obligor becomes aware of the fact that the obligor committed a fraudulent act while being aware of the fact that the obligee had harmed the obligee, so it is insufficient simply to recognize the fact that the obligor committed the act of disposal of the property, and that the juristic act is prejudicial to the obligee, i.e., an act that causes damage to the obligee, namely, a lack of joint security of the claim or a lack of joint security that has already been insufficient, making it impossible to fully satisfy the claim, and further, it is necessary to inform the obligor that he/she had an intent to harm the obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da82384, Jan. 12, 2).