In order to revoke the gift store concluded on October 1, 2019 with respect to E 1504 square meters in time of Jung-Eup between the Defendant and D.

The defendant.

D on November 11, 2019, the Defendant transferred ownership to the Defendant on October 1, 2019 on the land specified in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition (hereinafter “instant land”) due to the donation on October 1, 2019 (hereinafter “instant donation”).

(A) The Plaintiff had a claim of KRW 7,178,39 as of July 17, 2020 under a loan transaction agreement between D and D on December 26, 2016. The Plaintiff’s obligation to D financial institutions amounts to KRW 36,772,00 at the time of the above donation, and the fact that D’s property had no particular property other than the instant land does not conflict between the parties.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the donation of the instant land, the sole property of which is the Defendant with a considerable debt as above, to the Defendant is a fraudulent act by having the ordinary creditors, including the Plaintiff, lack of joint security, and in light of the fact that D’s property status and punishment were donated to the Defendant, D’s intention to commit suicide is recognized.

In regard to this, the Defendant alleged that the instant land was transferred by payment in lieu of the loan claims against D, but the evidence alone submitted by the Defendant is insufficient to recognize the existence of the Defendant’s claim against D, and if the joint security of ordinary creditors was insufficient due to the disposal of the property, it does not affect the establishment of the fraudulent act even if it was caused by payment in substitution.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da85161 Decided September 10, 2009). The Defendant alleged that the instant gift constitutes a fraudulent act, but the evidence alone presented by the Defendant is insufficient to recognize it.