The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation does not seek performance of an obligation, but is aimed at preventing the obligor’s reduction in financial capacity for all creditors, and ensuring the effectiveness of the obligor’s right of revocation by recovering and recovering the deviates obligor’s responsible property. As long as the preserved claim is established prior to the fraudulent act, it would be the obligee’s right of revocation even if its amount

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that it was highly probable that the Plaintiff’s claim for secondary damage compensation, the preserved claim of the Plaintiff, was not created at the time of the instant gift contract, and even if there was a tort committed by C, which serves as the basis for the establishment of the said claim, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s claim for secondary damage compensation was embodied only on October 16, 2015, which was rendered by the Suwon District Court Decision 2014Ga69736 (hereinafter “relevant case”), and that the Plaintiff’s damage was incurred after February 27, 2012, which is the date of the instant gift contract.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

According to the records, the claim for secondary damages is a damage equivalent to the damages for delay that the plaintiff additionally borne by because C refused the plaintiff's request for withdrawal of deposit and prevented the plaintiff from paying the full amount due to the plaintiff's failure to pay it to M. Since August 2010, C refused to request withdrawal of deposit from around August 201, and the plaintiff was unable to pay 500 million won to M by the payment date set forth in the Reconciliation Recommendation. The plaintiff was liable for delay damages of 20% per annum from November 1, 2010 to October 5, 2012; M was subject to a seizure collection order for the plaintiff's claim for withdrawal of deposit on October 6, 2014, and collected KRW 690,983,600 on October 6, 2014. The above amount was from November 1, 2010 to December 2012.