1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Korea Phone Board Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit for advertising price claim against C around 2008, the Seoul Western District Court 2008Gaso122555, and received the decision of performance recommendation on June 27, 2008, ordering payment of KRW 18,492,00 and delay damages therefor, and the said decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive on July 19, 2008.

B. C owned the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On August 7, 2008, C completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the said real estate’s 3/14 shares among the said real estate to the Defendants, who were children, on August 7, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. On December 3, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff received advertising payment claims from the Korea Phone Board Co., Ltd. based on the decision on performance recommendation.

C On August 7, 2008, immediately after the receipt of the above decision of performance recommendation, C completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation to the Defendants. The above contract of donation should be revoked as a fraudulent act. The Defendants are obligated to implement the procedure of registration of cancellation according to their respective shares as to the instant real estate as restitution following the revocation of the above fraudulent act.

3. The Defendants asserted that the instant lawsuit was unlawful, as it was filed five (5) years after the date of the fraudulent act, on the grounds that the instant lawsuit was filed.

The obligee’s right of revocation shall be filed within five years from the date of the juristic act (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act). It is clear in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on July 23, 2015 after the lapse of five years from August 7, 2008, the date when the said gift contract was concluded. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as a lawsuit brought after the lapse of the exclusion period.

The above defenses of the defendants are justified.

In the end, the instant lawsuit needs to be examined further on the other issues.