1. Revocation of the agreement on the gift made on November 8, 2016 between the Defendant and D on real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, a legal entity that manufactures and sells silents, supplied the Defendant’s husband to D who is the Defendant’s husband.

D On March 5, 2015, when filing an application for individual rehabilitation with the Daegu District Court 2014da31242, it was decided to authorize the repayment plan of the Plaintiff’s claim including KRW 53,526,500 and interest, but on April 12, 2017, it was decided to discontinue the individual rehabilitation procedure on the ground that the repayment plan is not implemented.

In the above individual rehabilitation procedure, D paid KRW 6,264,748 to the Plaintiff according to the repayment plan.

B. On November 8, 2016, D entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant, who is one’s wife, on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) (hereinafter referred to as “instant donation”), and registered the transfer of ownership with the Defendant as the receipt No. 13492 on November 17, 2016, the Daegu District Court Young-gu District Court Youngdro support 13492.

C. At the time of the instant donation, the instant real estate was the only property D.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 14, purport of whole pleadings

2. The act that a debtor sells real estate, which is the only property of his/her own, and alters such real estate in money which is easily consumed or transfers such real estate to another person without compensation, becomes a fraudulent act against a creditor

In such a case, the debtor's intention of deception is presumed, and the beneficiary who purchased or transferred it is unaware of the creditor's failure to harm the creditor, that is, the burden of proof that there was no bad faith.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001). In addition, the intention to commit suicide is that the obligor should not harm 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.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102, Mar. 26, 2009). With respect to the instant case, the health unit and the Defendant D are the wife.