1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party B, who is the father of the defendant, as Seoul Western District Court 2006Ra39037, and the above court ordered the plaintiff to pay the plaintiff 238,927,035 won and damages for delay on September 19, 2006. The above judgment became final and conclusive on October 10, 2006.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant claim”). B.

As of December 29, 2011, the Defendant purchased the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Apartment 501 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) for KRW 250 million, but the down payment of KRW 10 million is KRW 50 million at the time of the contract, and the intermediate payment of KRW 50 million at the time of the contract was concluded to pay the remainder of KRW 190 million on February 20, 2012 and the remainder of KRW 190 million on May 30, 2012. On April 9, 2012, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant apartment on April 9, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the assertion is that the funds required for the purchase of the apartment of this case are KRW 250 million. Of this, the Defendant borrowed KRW 140 million from the National Bank. However, the remainder KRW 100 million was donated to the Defendant around April 9, 2012 by Nonparty B (hereinafter “instant donation contract”). The instant donation contract is a fraudulent act detrimental to the obligees. The Plaintiff cancelled the instant donation contract and claimed for the return of KRW 110 million due to its restitution.

B. We examine the judgment, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant concluded the gift contract of this case with B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit without further review.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.