1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff either revoking or ordering payment shall be revoked.

Defendant D.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it refers to the summary of the judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts as to whether a preserved claim is recognized, the Plaintiff has a claim for compensation of KRW 109,570,651 against D.

this constitutes a preserved claim for the exercise of creditor's right of revocation as a monetary claim acquired by the Plaintiff prior to the instant gift contract.

[A] The Defendant asserts that “the Plaintiff renounced the remainder of the claim (hereinafter “the claim”) other than the amount that the Plaintiff could collect in accordance with the instant provisional disposition order, among the claims that the Plaintiff had against D upon the instant provisional disposition order at the time of the instant conciliation.” However, the following circumstances, which can be comprehensively identified, including the evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings, which were incurred prior to the instant recognition, namely, ① the conciliation of this case mainly contents that D withdraws an appeal and the Plaintiff consents to the withdrawal of appeal, and ② the conciliation clause (2) of this case merely limits the content that the Plaintiff and D make their efforts to resolve the instant case with each other under the explicit entry, and only states that “the instant conciliation clause” is “the instant provision” after the said sentence.

) The Plaintiff’s claim cannot be interpreted to have been agreed upon to extinguish the Plaintiff’s claim against D, and ③ D claims against the Plaintiff, stating that “no longer exists because the Plaintiff collected part of the claim and renounced the remainder of the claim, and thus, a compulsory execution based on the Plaintiff’s provisional disposition order of this case should be denied as the Plaintiff did not exist,” and that the Plaintiff’s claim objection, etc. (the Daejeon District Court 2017Gahap104709 was filed, and the said court determined that “the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have renounced the remainder of the claim,” and that D performed the obligation under Paragraph 1 of the instant provisional disposition order of this case on April 15, 201, and twice.