1. As to the Plaintiff, Defendant A’s KRW 91,366,140 and KRW 91,102,376 among them, from May 24, 2016 to July 13, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with Defendant A with the coverage amount of KRW 90,000,000,000, and as of September 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant credit guarantee agreement”); on the same day, Defendant A borrowed KRW 100,000,000 from the Daegu Bank based on the credit guarantee agreement issued by the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant A did not pay interest on the above loan, etc., resulting in a credit accident on February 6, 2016, and the Plaintiff had the same year.

5. 24. The Daegu Bank subrogated 91,102,376 won.

C. As of the date of the closing of argument in this case, the principal and interest of the claim for indemnity against the Defendant A as of the date of the closing of argument in this case are KRW 91,36,140 in total ($91,102,376 in subrogation + procedural expenses + KRW 263,764 in subrogation) and damages for delay from May 24, 2016, which is the date of subrogation.

On December 14, 2015, Defendant A entered into a contract of donation with Defendant B on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant contract of donation”); Defendant B entered into the registration of transfer of ownership based on the donation contract as the Head of Changwon District Court’s Office of Registry on December 28, 2015, as the receipt on December 28, 2015.

E. Defendant A was insolvent at the time of the instant gift agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-4, Gap evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) against the defendant A is liable to pay 91,366,140 won and damages for delay incurred by the plaintiff's subrogation in accordance with the credit guarantee agreement of this case.

(2) The instant donation contract against Defendant B constitutes a fraudulent act. Defendant B knowingly acquired the ownership of the instant real estate with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee by the said donation contract, and thus constitutes a malicious beneficiary.

Therefore, the gift contract of this case must be revoked, and the defendant.