1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant and B are married couple.

B. The Plaintiff holds against B a claim for damages for delay from April 8, 2016 to the date of full payment, as to KRW 149,919,689 and KRW 149,919,237 among them.

C. On March 4, 2015, the Defendant decided to purchase the apartment indicated in attached Table C (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from C, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the Defendant, with the transaction value of KRW 200,000,000 on March 10, 2015 as to the instant apartment.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. At the time of the sales contract for the apartment of this case between the Defendant and C, B entered into a title trust agreement with the Defendant and acquired the apartment of this case in the name of the Defendant for the purpose of evading compulsory execution, and the above title trust agreement becomes null and void, but the Defendant acquired the complete ownership of the apartment of this case pursuant to the proviso of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of the Forfeiture of Real Estate Rights, and thus, the Defendant

Since B is insolvent, the Plaintiff seek payment of KRW 60,000,000 of the actual purchase price of the apartment of this case on behalf of the title truster (=200,000,000) to the Defendant who is the title trustee on behalf of the title truster B (=140,00,000 of the amount of secured debt of the right to collateral security).

B. The conjunctive claimant B, a debtor of the conjunctive claim, acquired the apartment in this case under his own name, expected that there would be compulsory execution by the plaintiff and other creditors, and entered into a donation contract with the defendant, who is the wife, with the intention of evading this, on the purchase price of the apartment in this case. The defendant acquired the land in this case with the funds donated by D, which is the husband, so the contract for the donation of the purchase price of the land in this case shall be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff. The defendant, as a restoration to its original state, shall be the plaintiff.