1. The part against Defendant C among the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the primary claim.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 4, 2009, the Plaintiff lent 240 million won per annum to B at a rate of 24% per annum.

B. Meanwhile, on June 23, 2009, B donated KRW 160 million to Defendant C, who is an son (hereinafter “instant donation contract”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 7 (including each number, hereinafter the same), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The parties’ assertion (1) The Plaintiff’s gratuitous donation of KRW 160 million out of KRW 200,000,000,000, which is the only property borrowed from the Plaintiff in the absence of Party B, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation and seek cancellation of the instant donation contract and restitution to its original state.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that, at the time when the Defendant received a donation of KRW 100 million from B, B was not insolvent, and that there was no intention to cause harm to the Defendant, the beneficiary, and that the part of the claim for the revocation of the fraudulent act among the instant lawsuit was filed after the expiration of the exclusion period, and is unlawful.

B. We examine the Defendant’s main defense of safety, and pursuant to Article 406(2) of the Civil Act, when an obligor performs a juristic act aiming at property rights with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, the obligee’s lawsuit for revocation and restitution shall be filed within one year from the date the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation and within five years from the date of the juristic act. This constitutes the exclusion period. The fact that the instant donation contract was concluded on June 23, 2009 is as seen earlier. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for damages claim against the Defendant on the ground that the said date donation against the Plaintiff constitutes an illegal act against the Plaintiff, but added the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of fraudulent act on June 21, 2016.