1. A donation contract concluded on October 23, 2014 between the Defendants and Nonparty D regarding the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

1. The establishment of a fraudulent act and its original state;

A. 1) On January 26, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) under the joint and several guarantee of D on January 26, 2014, the Plaintiff set 2% of the interest rate of KRW 15 million to E (her husband) and the due date for payment on December 26, 2014 (hereinafter “instant loan”).

(2) On October 23, 2014, D concluded a gift agreement with the Defendants, who are their children, on October 23, 2014, on the attached list (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) with respect to the real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 27, 2014, with respect to each of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) on the following grounds: (a) filed a lawsuit against E and D seeking the payment of the instant loan obligation (Scheon District Court 2015Gau506, Crossing District Court 2006), and (b) filed a lawsuit against E and D seeking payment of the instant loan obligation; and (c) completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant real estate on October 27, 2014, as to each of the instant real estate share due to the said donation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 6 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination 1) The act of an obligor’s donation of real estate, which is its sole property, to a third party, becomes a fraudulent act against the obligee, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da60891, Oct. 14, 2005). Since such donation is objectively presumed to have been a fraudulent act, the obligee may cancel the donation act and claim restitution of the original state accordingly, unless the beneficiary proves that it had been bona fide at the time of the donation act (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006). D donated the real estate of this case, which is its sole property under excess of the obligation, to the Defendants, and thus, the contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, the obligee, and D’s intent is recognized.