The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the Plaintiff’s donation of money to the Defendant, who asserted as a fraudulent act, was made as a single act on January 8, 2008, and the lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act was filed five years after the exclusion period from the lawsuit.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the criteria for determining whether a debtor has stolen property and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

2. On the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the donation amount to the Defendant B is merely a deduction of KRW 1.9 billion, which is the value of 1/2 of the instant apartment.

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3, 4, and 5, the lower court determined, based on its stated reasoning, that B was in excess of the obligation at the time of the instant donation.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the standards for judgment of active and passive properties in

4. Conclusion.