1. Defendant A shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 6,139,650 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from January 11, 2019 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

(a)in annexed Form 2 to the indication of the claim;

The partial dismissal of delayed damages: The duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on November 7, 2020, and the rate of delayed damages prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings was 12% per annum, so the excessive portion of the claim is without merit.

(b) Applicable legal provisions: Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. On June 26, 2018, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) concluded a contract to donate an apartment in attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) that is the only property to Defendant B, the wife, with the excess of the debt (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 27, 2018. Since the instant gift contract is intended to evade compulsory execution or to reduce the Defendant’s active property, the said gift contract should be revoked, and Defendant B is obligated to cancel the registration of ownership transfer.

2) As Defendant A’s assertion on June 26, 2018 donated the instant apartment to Defendant B by division of the property due to divorce, Defendant A cannot be subject to revocation of the instant gift agreement.

B. In a judgment divorce, the division of property is to liquidate and distribute the common property of the substance that the couple had in the marriage, and at the same time contribute to the maintenance of the other party’s livelihood after the divorce. However, it may be divided by including the nature of the benefit as a payment to compensate for the mental damage that may be incurred as a result of divorce by the act of the split-off.

In determining the amount and method of the division of property, it is clear that the amount of the property achieved through the cooperation of both parties and other circumstances should be taken into account under the provision of Article 839-2 (2) of the Civil Code, and therefore, the person who divided the property has already been in excess of his/her obligation, or any one.