1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. A donation contract concluded on April 12, 2019 between the Defendant and C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. An order to pay C the Plaintiff KRW 600,000,000 and damages for delay was issued against C (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2012 tea3863). The said order was served to C on December 21, 2012, and became final and conclusive January 5, 2013.

B. C, on April 4, 2019, completed the registration of initial ownership as to the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant building with the Defendant on April 12, 201, by concluding a donation agreement with the Daegu District Court (hereinafter “instant donation agreement”) and by accepting the registration of ownership transfer under Article 9426 on the same day.

At the time, the representative of the defendant was C.

C. At the time of the conclusion of the instant gift contract, C’s active property was 47,306,540 won including the instant building, and its small property became 1,674,860,654 won.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7 through 9 (including virtual numbers), and the response to the submission of financial transaction information to D institutions, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the above loan claims are preserved claims of obligee’s right of revocation seeking revocation of the gift contract of this case, and C was in insolvent in excess of positive property at the time of the gift contract of this case.

Furthermore, the obligor’s intentional intent is presumed and the burden of proof that the purchaser did not maliciously exist is the beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da28819, 28826, Feb. 25, 2010). In light of the fact that the Defendant’s representative was C at the time of the instant donation contract, the evidence alone submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to reverse the presumption of bad faith beneficiary, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the gift contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus its cancellation is revoked, and the defendant is obliged to implement C with the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration.

3. The defendant.