1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion holds C the principal amount of KRW 17,500,000 and damages for delay as determined by the Ulsan District Court Decision 2016Da63837 Decided November 8, 2017, and the Plaintiff’s claim against C.

However, C paid its business income, etc. to the deposit account in the name of the defendant, who is his spouse, thereby evading obligations to the plaintiff, and monetary payment to the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, who is the creditor.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the amount stated in the claim, out of the money equivalent to C received from C, as restitution following the revocation of fraudulent act.

(In favor of the Plaintiff’s assertion as above) 2. Judgment

A. Where a creditor claims the revocation of a fraudulent act and restitution pursuant to Article 406(1) of the Civil Act, only the revocation of a fraudulent act may be first claimed and then subsequently filed for restitution (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da14108, Sept. 4, 2001). However, insofar as the revocation of a fraudulent act, which serves as the premise for restitution, is not revoked, the right to claim restitution is not recognized, and thus, it cannot be claimed only for restitution without seeking the revocation of a fraudulent act.

(Supreme Court Decision 2007Da69162 Decided December 11, 2008). B.

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2 and this court's significant facts, the Ulsan District Court held on November 8, 2017 that "C shall pay to the plaintiff 17,50,000 won and interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from December 29, 2016 to November 8, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment" that "C shall pay to the plaintiff 17,50,000 won and interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment."

(C) The judgment of dismissal (2017Na25321) was rendered by the same court on July 26, 2018 and the fact that the judgment of dismissal (2017Na25321) became final and conclusive around that time is recognized.

However, in light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s money against the Defendant C.