1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of “2. Additional Judgment” as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and thus, it is identical to the ground of the first instance judgment. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the instant gift agreement between B and the Defendant is deemed to have existed on March 19, 2013 on the grounds of registration; (b) but, in fact, around January 2, 2014, the instant gift agreement was made on the grounds of registration; and (c) thus, whether B’s insolvency is an obligor based on January 2, 2014 ought to be determined.

② The Defendant made a confession that the point of time of the instant donation contract was around January 2, 2014, and the Defendant revoked it on the ground of mistake but has no effect of revocation.

③ In light of the fact that the instant donation contract (as of March 19, 2013) and the Daegu Real Estate sales contract (as of April 4, 2013), were extremely close to the sales contract (as of April 4, 2013), and the Defendant and B, a party to the instant donation contract, could have known, or could have known, that the Defendant would have known, that there was a transfer of the said Daegu Real Estate by a married couple, the Defendant would have been an act of transferring the said Daegu Real Estate

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant gift contract between B and the Defendant was concluded on January 2, 2014, not on March 19, 2013, rather than on March 19, 2013.

There is a legal act corresponding to a fraudulent act at a certain point, it should be determined carefully in consideration of the significant impact on the interests between the parties, and the date when the legal act corresponding to a fraudulent act was committed should be determined as the standard, except in other special circumstances, whether such a fraudulent act was actually committed based on the date of registration in the register which appears to be based on the disposal document.