1. Each gift contract concluded on June 19, 2013 between the defendant and the non-party B regarding each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 24, 2012, the Plaintiff and Nonparty B entered into a loan agreement with Nonparty B on the loan amounting to KRW 23,00,000,00 for the loan principal, KRW 36 months for the loan period, interest rate of KRW 16.50 per annum, interest rate of KRW 28.50 per annum, and KRW 28.50 per annum, ② a loan agreement with the loan amounting to KRW 2,00,000 for the loan principal on March 4, 2013, KRW 26 months for the loan period, interest rate of KRW 23% per annum, ③ a loan agreement with the loan principal on March 4, 2013, KRW 2,00,000 for the loan period of KRW 38 months, interest rate of KRW 295 per annum

B. Nonparty B lost the benefit of time after June 10, 2013; B’s (i) the principal of and interest on obligations under the credit transaction agreement as set forth in the credit transaction agreement is KRW 21,450,401 (as of September 12, 2013; (ii) the principal amount is KRW 20,428,480; interest KRW 827,036; damages for delay; and (iii) the principal on obligations under the credit transaction agreement as set forth in the credit transaction agreement is KRW 1,934,321 (as of June 19, 2013); and (iii) the principal on obligations is KRW 2,00,000.

C. On June 19, 2013, Nonparty B entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant on the entire shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the sole property of the Defendant, and completed the registration of the entire shares in the Defendant’s future on the same day.

Defendant and B were married on March 11, 201, but they were divorced by law on June 27, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 16, fact-finding results on the Jeju market, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The act of a non-party B’s donation of the entire shares of each real estate indicated in the separate sheet, the only property of which is his spouse, to the defendant under excess of his/her obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act and thus, should be revoked.

B. The sum of KRW 120,00,000 in the purchase price of each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the summary of the Defendant’s assertion was paid to the Defendant as funds raised by the Defendant. Of each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the share in Nonparty B was trusted in title to Nonparty B, and the Defendant terminated the above title trust in the course of divorce with Nonparty B, and the owner thereof.