1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Following the premise facts can be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 10, and Eul evidence No. 17 (including branch numbers), and the whole purport of the arguments.

B On September 15, 2011 and October 4, 2011, the Defendant donated each of one-half shares of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) to the Defendant, and completed each of the said shares in the name of the Defendant.

At the time, the instant real estate was the only real estate B.

On August 31, 2012, the Komato Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Tomato Savings Bank") was declared bankrupt by Suwon District Court 2012Hahap23, and on the same day, the Plaintiff was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy of the toeto Savings Bank.

2. On June 9, 2010, the Plaintiff’s summary of the claim: (a) on a loan of KRW 14,50,000,000 to C; (b) on the same day, B set the current (at the time) and future obligations to the earth and sand savings bank in C as KRW 21,750,000,000 in total; and (c) on the same day, B provided comprehensive collateral guarantee.

On August 27, 2010, Homato Savings Bank loaned KRW 8,890,000,000 to D, and around that time, B set forth the current and future debts to D's Homato Savings Bank as KRW 12,55,000,000 in total service coverage limit.

B’s donation of the instant real estate to the Defendant on September 15, 201 and October 4, 2011 constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the obligee.

Therefore, in addition to the cancellation of the gift contract of this case, the Plaintiff seek compensation for the value of KRW 307,266,765 against the Defendant, the beneficiary, as a result, as a reinstatement.

3. We examine the exclusion period of the instant lawsuit and whether it is based on the main defense to safety.

A. A lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act should be brought within one year from the date the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation.

(Article 406, Paragraph 2, Article 406 of the Civil Code). The "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause of revocation" is insufficient to recognize the fact that the debtor conducts a disposal of the property.