1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The fact that: (a) on October 6, 2010, the Defendant, who was based B, on October 7, 2010, completed the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) on each of the instant real estate on the ground of the gift on October 6, 2010 (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”); and (b) there is no dispute between the parties.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant donation contract was a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, a loan holder against B, and filed a claim for the cancellation of the instant donation contract and the subsequent restitution of the ownership transfer registration.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful, since it was filed five years after the date of the donation contract of this case.

However, according to Article 406(2) of the Civil Act, a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act shall be instituted within five years from the date of the occurrence of a juristic act. However, when a juristic act constituting a fraudulent act was committed, the date on which such fraudulent act was actually committed shall be determined as the standard. However, in cases where it is difficult to determine it, it may be determined whether such fraudulent act was actually committed, centering on the date on which the cause of registration appears based on a disposition document, based on the date on which

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the date of the instant donation contract is October 6, 2010 and the date of the instant transfer of ownership should be deemed a juristic act is not acceptable, in full view of the following: (a) the date of registration is indicated as October 6, 2010 on the register of the instant transfer of ownership based on these legal principles; (b) the date of the cause of registration is the day before the date of the instant transfer of ownership; and (c) there is no evidence to deem that B and the Defendant had recorded the date of the instant transfer of ownership falsely; and (d) it is reasonable to deem the date of the instant donation contract as October 6, 2010, and otherwise, the date of the instant transfer of ownership should be deemed the date of the instant transfer of ownership

However, the warden of this case is the same.