1. The contract of donation concluded on August 1, 2012 between the defendant and B concerning each real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2...

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), the plaintiff loaned 16,00,000 won interest rate of 12.4% per annum on December 23, 2005, interest rate of 12.4% on delay damages rate of December 22, 2006, interest rate of 19% per annum on delay damages rate of December 22, 2006 (hereinafter "the loan of this case"), Eul's wife guaranteed the above loan to the plaintiff, and as of December 29, 2006, the debt of this case as of December 29, 2006 is the principal amount of KRW 16,00,000 and interest rate of KRW 1,891,682 (the former District Court Decision No. 2009Da2899, Apr. 8, 2009). Meanwhile, the plaintiff's registration of execution was recognized as the only claim for the transfer of real property of this case to the plaintiff.

The debtor's act of transferring his own property to another person without compensation is presumed to be a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring special circumstances. Thus, according to the above acknowledged facts, the contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act and thus the contract of this case should be revoked. The defendant is obligated to implement the procedure of cancellation registration of transfer of ownership of this case to the original state B, barring special circumstances.

Since the defendant did not know the existence of the obligation against the plaintiff at the time of the donation contract in this case, he asserts that he is a bona fide beneficiary. Thus, the debtor's act of transferring real estate, which is the only property, to another person without compensation, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring special circumstances. Therefore, the burden of proof that the transferor did not have acted in bad faith exists to the beneficiary.