1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant D shall be dismissed.

2. Defendant C: (a) KRW 89,640,000 for the Plaintiff; and (b) October 4, 2019 for the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

A. 1) The defendant's defense of this case is defense that the plaintiff's claim for the part concerning the revocation of creditor among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because the exclusion period expires. 2) The plaintiff's defense of this case shall be filed within one year from the date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation and five years from the date when the legal act was performed.

(Article 406(2) of the Civil Act. In a case where a creditor acts in subrogation of a debtor's right of revocation, the period for filing a lawsuit shall be based on the debtor, who is the creditor of the right that is the object of subrogation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da73049 delivered on December 27, 2001). However, in full view of the facts or circumstances that Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the facts or circumstances that Eul and E are women, i.e., the fact that Eul and Eul are women, ii, E is likely to have been well aware of C's property status at the time of donation of real estate listed in attached table Nos. 7 through 10 to the defendant, it is reasonable to deem that Eul was aware that the above donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful since it is apparent that the lawsuit of this case was filed on September 24, 2019 after the lapse of one year from that time, and as such, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation against the Defendant, which was filed with the view to

B. According to the conclusion of the lawsuit, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation against the Defendant is unlawful and thus, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution, which is premised on it, is also unlawful.

Even if the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for the revocation portion against the obligee was filed in compliance with the exclusion period, the Plaintiff wishes to impair E at the time of donation by C of the real estate indicated in the attached list 7 through 10 to the Defendant.