1. The plaintiff's appeal is all 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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff lent to E a total of KRW 60 million on December 21, 2009, and KRW 30 million on March 15, 2010.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan”) B.

Defendant D’s husband, Defendant B, and Defendant D are children of E and Defendant D.

[Ground of recognition] No. 1-1 and No. 2-2, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion E donated the money received after cancelling the financial investment instruments held by the new financial investment company to the Defendants from October 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012.

E is a donation to the Defendants, as their family members, of the above financial assets, which are almost the only property even though there was no particular property at the time, and this constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, etc., as E’

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s rescission of the above gift agreement concluded between the Defendants and E within the limit of KRW 60,000,000 shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s restitution shall be sought from the Defendants for the payment of KRW 60,000,000 as well as damages for delay.

B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff donated the money that the E had received upon cancelling its financial investment instrument from October 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendants is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants should be dismissed in its entirety as there is no reasonable ground.

The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair by rejecting the lawsuit in this case, but it is recognized that the first instance court was tried to the extent that it can render a judgment on the merits, and thus, it is decided to render a judgment on the merits without returning it to the first instance court pursuant to the proviso to Article 418

However, in this case, only the plaintiff appealed, the judgment of the first instance was revoked to the plaintiff, who is the appellant in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.