1. The contract of donation concluded on May 23, 2016 between Defendant A and C shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff holds a claim for the payment of feed against D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).

On July 2, 2015, C, a internal director of D, agreed to pay 240,000,000 won to the Plaintiff out of the feed payment obligation that D owes to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff's claim for the payment of feed against D is KRW 433,202,00 as of May 2016.

B. On May 23, 2016, C entered into a gift agreement with Defendant A, the spouse, on the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by it (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the same year.

5. 24. The registration of transfer of ownership was completed by the Gwangju District Court No. 90022.

C. At the time of the conclusion of the above gift contract, the instant real estate was established as a collateral with Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. as a collateral, but there was no collateral obligation.

In addition, C was in a state of excess of liability and did not possess any property other than the instant real estate.

Defendant A entered into a sales contract with Defendant B on June 14, 2016, setting the price for the instant real estate as KRW 137,000,000, with Defendant B, and the same year.

6. 20. The registration of the transfer of ownership is completed by the same court No. 10775.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts as to the establishment of a fraudulent act against Defendant A, the act of donation to Defendant A, who is the only spouse, of the instant real estate under excess of the debt, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, which is the creditor.

The defendant A, who received the above real estate from C, is also presumed to have concluded the above gift contract with the knowledge of such circumstances.

As to this, Defendant A, not only himself, but also C, was not aware of the content of debt D at the time of donation of the apartment of this case, due to lack of joint security.