1. The contract of donation concluded on July 9, 2014 between the Defendant and B shall be revoked.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 11, 2001, the Defendant reported marriage between B and B, and on April 6, 2015, reported divorce.

B. On June 19, 2014, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 5 million to B at the rate of 34.9% per annum, the due date for payment was set as 34.9% per annum, and the due date was set as June 18, 2019. The Plaintiff did not receive the principal amount of KRW 4,98,225, and interest and delay damages thereon up until now.

C. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant was completed on October 17, 2007 due to the sale as of October 16, 2007, and the donation as of July 9, 2014 (hereinafter “instant donation”).

B, at the time of entering into the instant gift agreement, only the instant real estate was owned as the sole active property, and approximately KRW 16.9 million was owed to the Plaintiff in addition to KRW 5 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The debtor's act of selling real estate, which is the only property of the debtor, and replacing it with money easily consumed or transferring it to another person without compensation, is presumed to constitute a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring any special circumstances. Therefore, the debtor's intent of deception is presumed to have been presumed, and the burden of proof that the purchaser or the transferor did not have bad faith is

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001). In this case, B’s donation of the instant real estate, the sole property of which is the husband, to the Defendant, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is the obligee, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to be a beneficiary

Therefore, the contract of donation of this case concluded between the defendant and B is revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant as a restoration to its original state shall complete the real estate of this case to B.