1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. A donation contract concluded on April 24, 2017 between the Defendant and C is concluded.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 6, 2015, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 20,000,00 to C on May 6, 2019 as due date for reimbursement, KRW 12.40 per annum, and KRW 19% per annum. Since C delayed payment of the principal and interest, the sum of the principal and interest as of May 14, 2019 is KRW 23,056,91.

B. On April 24, 2017, C donated real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, one’s mother, who is the Defendant (hereinafter “instant donation agreement”), and on April 28, 2017, C completed the ownership transfer registration in the Defendant’s future (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”).

C. At the time of the instant donation contract, C did not have any property except the instant real estate, whereas C bears a large amount of loans to a large number of bank notes including the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the fact inquiry results about the Court Administration Office of this Court, the fact inquiry results about D, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, C has donated the instant real estate, which is one of its sole property, to the Defendant under the status of bearing a large number of debts, and thus, the above donation contract shall be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, and shall be restored to its original state, and the Defendant shall be obliged to implement C with the procedure for

B. The Defendant asserts that the instant real estate does not constitute a fraudulent act, since it was a title trust with the property of the Defendant and the Defendant’s spouse and returned to C again under the name of the Defendant.

No evidence exists to prove the defendant's assertion, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.