1. The gift contract concluded on April 5, 2012 between the Defendant and B is KRW 59,143,768.

1. Whether the fraudulent act is constituted;

A. 1) On June 5, 2009, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 600,00,000 to B on June 5, 2012. However, B was unable to repay the above loan until the due date. The Plaintiff’s loan claim against B is KRW 360,937,193 as of October 21, 2014 (i.e., principal amount: KRW 264,343,525) (i.e., principal amount; KRW 96,593,68; KRW 2) B entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant on April 5, 2012 on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On the same day, B completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”).

3) B and the Defendant are married with each other, and B were in excess of obligations at the time of donation of the instant real estate, and the instant real estate was the only real estate B. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (a serial number) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. 1) If an obligor donated his/her property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, such act constitutes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da28686, May 31, 2007). According to the above fact-finding, B donated the instant real property to the Defendant in excess of his/her obligation, and thus, the instant donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act that further enhances the financial status of B, and the Defendant, a beneficiary, is presumed to have been malicious, and thus, the instant donation contract concluded on April 5, 2012 between the Defendant and B should be revoked as a fraudulent act. 2) The Defendant asserted to the effect that the instant real property was donated from the Dong-Eup Agricultural Cooperative (hereinafter referred to as the “Dong-Eup Agricultural Cooperative”) by granting a loan if it was established under the name of the Defendant, not the Defendant, as to the instant real property.