1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are the persons holding a claim at the rate of 20% per annum from June 1, 2013 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “claim of this case”) with respect to the Seocho-gu Seoul High Court case 2012Na28730, Jan. 25, 2013, and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from June 1, 2013 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “the claim of this case”). The Defendant is the representative of the Seocho-gu District Court.

B. On May 21, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the gift dated May 20, 2013 (hereinafter “instant gift”) with respect to the instant real estate on May 21, 2013.

(hereinafter “this case’s transfer registration”). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On May 20, 2013, the Defendant donated the instant real estate to the Defendant on May 20, 2013. At the time of entering into the said gift agreement, the Defendant’s active property of the instant club is each real estate listed in Articles 1 through 24 of the attached Table 1 of the instant real estate and the attached list (hereinafter “the remainder of the instant real estate”).

) The value of the remaining real estate in this case was KRW 1,479,157,754, and the small property in this case was 2,600,000,000 and damages for delay at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from June 1, 2013 to the date of full payment. 2) As such, the instant salary club donated its property to the Defendant under excess of the obligation, the instant gift agreement constitutes a fraudulent act, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to be a beneficiary.

Therefore, the donation contract of this case shall be revoked, and the defendant, the beneficiary, is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the transfer of ownership of this case to the Dobong-gu Council, the debtor.

B. Determination 1) If a debtor donated his/her own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, barring special circumstances, such act constitutes a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court)