(a) B B signed on August 4, 2014 between the Defendant and B.

A. Tax claim against the plaintiff B

B. B’s disposal act was concluded on August 4, 2014 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the Defendant, his father, and on August 4, 2014, and completed the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership as indicated in the order on the 14th day of the same month (hereinafter “instant provisional registration”).

C. B’s active property at the time of August 4, 2014, which was the date of the instant promise to sell and purchase the instant property in excess of B, is KRW 431,557,759 (including KRW 430,00,000 on the instant real property), and the small property is KRW 496,118,092 as follows.

CD [Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In principle, it is required that a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the occurrence of an act that can be deemed as a fraudulent act. However, at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that form the basis of the establishment of the claim, and there is high probability that the claim should be established in the near future by such legal relations. In the near future, where a claim has been created because the probability has been realized in the near future, such claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’

(2) The taxation claim of this case against B was already based on the legal relationship that forms the basis of the taxation claim, and the tax liability was already established. The taxation claim of this case against B was already established.

In addition, it is naturally anticipated that the head of the competent tax office will levy the value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax every year on B who owns the business and owns the property.

In fact, thereafter.