1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 23, 2017, the Daejeon District Court issued a payment order against C to the effect that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 41,878,94 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 29% per annum from June 24, 2015 to the date of full payment” with respect to KRW 25,471,75 among the amount of KRW 41,878,94 and the amount of KRW 25,75 from June 24, 2015, and C did not raise an objection to the original payment order.”

B. On November 9, 2017, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order against C’s deposit claims by designating the original copy of the above payment order as the executive title.

(Reasons for recognition), entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole, of the fact that there is no dispute over (based on recognition) military production support of the Jeonju District Court 2017TT 103403

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion C, in operating the place of business in the name of “D”, deposited the amount in the name of E Union account in the name of E Union. However, as the former District Court’s Gunsan Branch 2017 Gunsan Branch 2017 Gunsan Branch 103403 and the collection order did not use the principal account, donated the Defendant’s income in the place of business operated by the method of receiving the amount from

The contract of donation between C and the defendant, which was in excess of debt, constitutes a fraudulent act, is revoked, and thus, seek compensation for the equivalent value of KRW 25,00,000 as a result of restitution.

3. Determination

A. In order to constitute a donation, it shall be interpreted that there exists a mutual agreement between the debtor and the beneficiary with respect to the grant of the money paid as such through a “donation” so that it can be reverted to the beneficiary ultimately.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861 Decided July 26, 2012). B.

As to the instant case, the following circumstances, namely, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 7 (the same as the result of the inquiry into the E-Union by this Court), and evidence Nos. 8, can be seen through the entire purport of the pleading.