The gift contract concluded on December 3, 2015 between the defendant and the non-party D with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet is 28,095.

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the purport of the entire argument as a result of inquiries about the original market of this court, the non-party D (hereinafter the non-party D) delayed payment of KRW 10,816,018 to the plaintiff on January 17, 2014; the overdue interest rate of KRW 8,868,241 out of the above money; KRW 25% per annum for KRW 24,70,000 per annum for KRW 24.5% per annum for KRW 24,70,00 for KRW 17,00 and KRW 17,093,078 for the overdue interest as of April 14, 2020 for KRW 17,09,078 for the main market of this court; the non-party D (the non-party D); the non-party D (the non-party) bears the ownership of each of the above real estate in addition to each of the above real estate (the non-party 2015, each of this case).

However, barring any special circumstance, the debtor’s act of donation of real estate, which is the only property of himself, to another person without compensation, becomes an act of harming the creditor (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da60891, Oct. 14, 2005). In such a case, the debtor’s intent of harming himself is presumed (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001, etc.). And the beneficiary’s bad faith is presumed also presumed (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da12526, Jun. 13, 2003; 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006, each of the instant real estate, which is the only real property owned by himself, constitutes the act of donation of this case, barring any special circumstance, which is presumed to be a debtor’s intent to cause foreign capital and a beneficiary’s bad faith.

In a dispute, the defendant decided to repay the debt of the non-party, and received each of the real estate of this case as a substitute repayment, and the defendant repaid the above debt, so the donation contract of this case is concluded.