1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On January 20, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C to return the investment amount (Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap103436) and was sentenced to a favorable judgment with respect to “C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 150,000,000 and 20% interest per annum from December 19, 2009 to the date of full payment.” The judgment was finalized on February 6, 2010.

The defendant is the wife C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the gist of the plaintiff's argument as to the ground of claim as to the overall purport of the pleadings, C, who had previously been leased and resided, was returned the lease deposit under the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building (hereinafter "D Building") 301 and moved together with the defendant under the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E apartment (hereinafter "E apartment") No. 503, the defendant's present address. On July 8, 2013, the defendant filed a move-in report from the above address to the head of household.

In light of these circumstances, C is nothing more than a donation to the Defendant of the lease deposit returned from D Building that the Defendant would be able to pay the deposit for the lease of the E-House around July 8, 2013.

Such gift contract constitutes a fraudulent act that reduces C’s responsible property, and the defendant was aware of such circumstances as the wife, so the above gift contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant must return 250,000,000,000,000,000, which was donated to C due to its restitution to C again.

On July 8, 2013, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that C entered into a gift contract with the defendant on July 8, 2013 only with Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4. Rather, in full view of the evidence Nos. 1 and the result of the fact inquiry about F by this court, the witness G testimony and the whole purport of the pleading, C seek a return of KRW 200 million out of the amount paid by the non-party C to the non-party H as the facility protection deposit or the lease deposit (Seoul Central District Court 2010Gahap26184).