1. The contract of donation concluded on July 29, 2016 between the Defendant and C is revoked.

2...

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff filed an application against the obligor, including C, for the payment order of Daegu District Court No. 2010 tea8014. On August 6, 2010, the above court rendered a payment order with the content that “The obligor jointly and severally liable to the obligee 137,006,724 won and any of them 21,020,979 won per annum 19% per annum from July 20, 2010 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was finalized around that time.

Attached Form

The real estate indicated in the list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 18, 2003 by C’s Dong D on the ground of sale and purchase on September 18, 2003. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 1, 2005 due to E’s donation. Since E dies, C completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate due to inheritance by consultation and division on July 25, 2016.

C On August 1, 2016, on August 1, 2016, the Defendant, a spouse, completed the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) based on the ownership transfer agreement (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) from No. 44312, which was received on August 1, 2016 to July 29, 2016, with respect to the instant real estate.

On the other hand, on September 26, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the debtor D with respect to the instant real estate amounting to KRW 26 million.

Then, on August 29, 2005, the registration of alteration was completed on the ground of the debtor's acceptance of the final and conclusive obligation exemption. On September 7, 2016, the registration of alteration was completed on the ground of the debtor's acceptance of the debtor's exemption from the final and conclusive obligation (hereinafter "registration of alteration of this case").

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings as a whole, the gift contract of this case lacks joint security of claims by reducing C's property in excess of liability.