1. The contract of donation concluded on January 13, 2016 between the Defendant and C is revoked.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D Union was sentenced on August 27, 2013 in Seoul Western District Court 2013da27203 and joint and several debt loans filed against E and C, that “the Defendant jointly and severally pays to the Plaintiff 15,569,529 won and 3,987,826 won among them, 19% per annum from November 19, 2012 to May 9, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive on September 17, 2013.

B. On June 5, 2015, D Union transferred the above credit to F Co., Ltd., and F Co., Ltd. transferred the said credit to the Plaintiff on February 6, 2017, and notified F Co., Ltd of the fact on February 23, 2017.

C. Meanwhile, on January 13, 2016, C completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant, one of its children on the ground of the same date donation with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter “this case’s registration of transfer of ownership”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff’s claim against C becomes a preserved claim for the obligee’s right of revocation, and the instant gift contract where C transferred the instant real estate, which is its sole property, to the Defendant without compensation, becomes a fraudulent act against C’s obligee, and is presumed to have C’s intent to understand.

In this regard, the defendant asserted that C had no intention to cause harm to C, because C had a joint and several surety obligation against D D, but E had known that E had fully repaid, and Seoul Western District Court 2013da27203 loan and joint and several surety obligation case were conducted by service by public notice.

However, such circumstance alone is insufficient to reverse C's presumption of intention to commit suicide, and thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. The defendant's defense shall be decided by C against the plaintiff.