1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts without dispute;

A. As of March 30, 2018, the Plaintiff has a claim for reimbursement of KRW 23,143,690 against B.

(Seoul Central District Court 201j. 5058).(b)

B was donated by the father on June 16, 2014 from the Defendant’s father (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On the same day, the Defendant and B made a pre-sale agreement and made the Defendant a provisional registration right holder on June 16, 2014, and completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “provisional registration of this case”).

2. The plaintiff asserts that the purchase and sale reservation of this case constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors, since B disposes of real estate, the sole property of which is the property to evade the plaintiff's obligations.

In this regard, the defendant asserts to the purport that the gift of this case is subject to sale and purchase reservation and provisional registration, and that the conditional gift is not an act of reducing the whole property of B, and it is unreasonable to separate only provisional registration as a fraudulent act.

In a case where a debtor's act of reducing liability property causes or deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors, whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances revealed in the act, such as the ratio of the subject matter of the act to the whole responsible property of the debtor, the degree of insolvency, the legitimacy of the economic purpose of the juristic act and its realization means, the reasonableness of the act in question, the nature of the duty or situation, and the degree of perception of the parties as to the risk of lack of common security, such as the existence of a collusion between the debtor and the beneficiary, and ultimately, the act may be considered as

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da2718, Sept. 30, 2010). In this case, real estate donation and real estate donation.