1. The gift contract concluded on February 28, 2019 between the Defendant and D with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet is 20,075.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff has a claim against D with the principal and interest amounting to KRW 20,075,124 as of December 13, 2019, based on the final and conclusive protocol for the credit card use payment case by Suwon District Court 2015Na9582, as to D.

B. On February 28, 2019, D entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant donation”). On February 28, 2019, D completed the registration of transfer of ownership as the receipt of the Suwon District Court registry No. 43962 on February 28, 2019 to the Defendant.

C. The Defendant and D married on April 26, 2001, and the consultation was married on September 10, 2019.

At the time of the donation of this case, D’s active property was approximately KRW 204,97,00, and about KRW 546,352,954.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 16, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. “Fraud act” subject to the obligee’s right of revocation under Article 406 of the Civil Act refers to an act detrimental to the obligee by reducing the obligor’s active property or increasing the negative property, thereby making the obligor in excess of his/her obligation or deepening the status of excess of his/her obligation.

(Supreme Court Decision 2015Da254675 Decided October 26, 2017). The intention to commit suicide is that the obligor should not prejudice the obligee when doing a juristic act.

Here, the term "sea" does not mean any intention or intent, but it is sufficient to obtain simple recognition.

In the end, the intention of the resolution is to recognize the fact that there is a risk that the creditor would be difficult to receive reimbursement due to the lack of joint security, and such recognition is sufficient in relation to the general creditor, and it is not necessary to recognize that it would prejudice a specific creditor.

(Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102 Decided March 26, 2009). According to the above facts, D has concluded the instant donation contract and concluded the instant donation contract, thereby reducing its positive property, and thus, is still in excess of its obligation.