1. The agreement between the Defendant and B on donation of KRW 17,813,430, which was concluded on November 13, 2012, shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall make the plaintiff 17.

1. Basic facts

A. B on September 8, 2008, borrowed KRW 45 million from the Ga Capital Co., Ltd. (former trade name before the change: Daewoo Capital Co., Ltd.).

On May 1, 2011, the Plaintiff acquired a claim against the foregoing B from Aju Capital Co., Ltd. for the same year.

6. 7. The assignment of claims was notified to B, and the above notification reached B at that time.

B. As of September 24, 2015, the principal and interest of the Plaintiff’s obligation against B is KRW 44,576,657 (principal principal KRW 22,967,631, interest KRW 21,609,026, interest rate of delay interest rate of KRW 24% per annum; hereinafter “instant obligation”).

C. B used the post office account in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant post office account”) from around 2009, and transferred the sum of KRW 17,813,430 from the instant post office account to the Defendant’s name bank account twice on November 13, 2012.

(name of the remitter at the time of remittance was written “the name of the remitter”. (d)

B: (a) On October 1, 2013, the Daegu District Court 2013Hadan4461, 4461, and 4461 rendered bankruptcy and application for immunity; (b) however, on November 13, 2012, rendered a decision not to grant immunity on the ground that the gift of KRW 17,813,430 to the Defendant constitutes a case where a false application document was submitted or a false statement on the status of property was made because it was not stated in the application.

B did not file an immediate appeal against the above decision.

E. B is in excess of the obligation from November 13, 2012 to the date of the closing of the instant argument.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Eul evidence 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion B was that the Defendant donated KRW 17,813,430 to the Defendant in excess of the debt, and thus, the Defendant must return the said money to the Plaintiff with the restitution of the said money.

B. Although the Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1 was used by B, B did not have income, and the instant case did not have any income.