1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff’s KRW 207,00,000 to B on December 31, 2010 (hereinafter “the first loan”).

) and 227,00,000 won (hereinafter referred to as “second-class loan”)

A) On December 31, 2015, B leased the instant apartment as the due date. From June 1, 2011, B began to pay interest on the second loan to the Plaintiff, and from August 1, 2012, B entered into a donation contract with the Defendant, who is the husband, on February 8, 2011, on the instant apartment, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant apartment based on the said donation contract to the Defendant on the same day.

3) Meanwhile, B was in excess of the obligation at the time of the instant donation contract, and there was no specific property except for the instant apartment. 【The fact that there was no dispute between the parties to the instant apartment, the entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that B knew of the fact that the act of donation of the apartment of this case, which is substantially the only property value of the Defendant, the husband, in excess of debt, was a fraudulent act in relation to the general creditors of B including the Plaintiff, and the relationship between B and the Defendant, and the contract of this case was a gratuitous act. Since the Defendant, the beneficiary, is presumed to have been malicious, the Plaintiff may exercise the right of revocation against the Defendant and seek restitution for its original status, barring any special circumstance.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that he was unaware of the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the instant gift contract, which was the obligee, but the date of arrears set forth earlier is insufficient to recognize solely on the ground that the date of arrears set forth earlier was June 1, 201, which was June 1, 201 when the instant gift contract was concluded, and that it may otherwise be recognized.