1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. On the premise that the principal claim was concluded between the debtor himself and the father B, the father of the defendant, and the defendant, the plaintiff shall claim for the return of the value by revocation and restitution on the ground that the contract is an act detrimental to the general creditor.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the gift contract in attached Form B was concluded between the defendant and B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2. On the premise that B’s title trust of the real estate attached to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff also claims a refund of the purchase price in unjust enrichment based on the subrogation right of the obligee.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to view the instant real estate as a contract title trust to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.