3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

A. On May 13, 2013, BB entered into a sales contract with DDD (hereinafter referred to as "DDD") to sell each real estate (hereinafter referred to as "the instant real estate") listed in the separate sheet 2 attached hereto as KRW 1,500,000 (Evidence 2) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership of the instant real estate to DDD on November 27, 2014. (B) Each of the instant gift BB donated KRW 31,00,000,000 from May 29, 2013 to December 30, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant donations").

C. ABB did not pay capital gains tax after selling the instant real estate as above. On April 10, 2015, the head of the Z District Tax Office determined capital gains tax amount to KRW 273,157,676 [270,439,757 (hereinafter “instant capital gains tax”) and additional tax 2,717,919 won due to nonperformance of payment] and notified BBB of its payment by April 30, 2015, BB did not pay capital gains tax amount to KRW 272,95,412 (270,439,757, additional tax amount to KRW 2,55,655, and additional tax amount to KRW 25,65,652], and notified BB of its payment by 36,205,205, 206, 275, 2015, 25, 365, 206, 205, 2015B.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Whether each of the gift contracts of this case was fraudulent

1) Formation of preserved claims

A) Relevant legal principles

Even if the preserved claim for exercising the right of revocation did not have yet occurred at the time of the fraudulent act, the legal relationship was already established, and if there was a high probability that the preserved claim will be realized in the near future, in view of the situation at the time of the fraudulent act, it may be deemed as the preserved claim even if the claim was finally embodied and established (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da213861, Jan. 29, 2014). (B) In this case, the preserved claim can be deemed as the preserved claim even if it was established later

According to the above facts, each of the instant donations was made from May 29, 2013 to December 30, 2014. Since the sale and purchase contract for the instant real estate, which serves as the basis for establishing the Plaintiff’s taxation claim, was established on May 13, 2013, each of the instant donations was established on the basis of the Plaintiff’s establishment of the taxation claim for capital gains tax at the time of each of the instant donations, and the sales price of the instant real estate is KRW 1,50,000,000, in light of the fact that each of the instant donations was the basis for establishing the Plaintiff’s taxation claim for capital gains tax at the time of each of the instant donations, and there is a high probability that the Plaintiff’s taxation claim for capital gains tax exceeds KRW 200,000,000. In fact, the head of the ZB notified the BB to pay the determined tax amount on the instant real estate sale and purchase as KRW 270,439,757, and thus, the Plaintiff’s creditor’s right of revocation can be seen.

(A) excess of BB’s obligations;

(1) Relevant legal principles

In case where a debtor continuously disposes of several properties, in principle, it shall be judged whether each act causes insolvency. However, when there are special circumstances to regard the series of acts as a single act, it shall be determined as a whole. In this case, in determining whether there is such special circumstances, the other party to the disposition is the same, whether each disposition is close to time, whether the other party to the disposition has special relations with the debtor, and whether the motive or opportunity of each disposition is identical (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da7795, Jul. 22, 2005).

(2) In the instant case:

First of all, we examine the criteria for determining fraudulent act of each gift contract of this case. The following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, namely, that the other party to each gift of this case is the defendant, and that BB is registered as a co-resident on the resident registration, and the defendant also acknowledges that there is a friendly relationship between BB and the defendant's father Kim Inop.

In full view of the circumstances indicating a considerable-friendly relationship, BB received the purchase price of the instant real estate from DD and received part of the purchase price to the Defendant, and continued each of the instant donations in close connection with the payment of the purchase price of the instant real estate, it is reasonable to deem that each of the instant gift contracts against the Defendant constitutes a case where there exist special circumstances to deem the series of acts as a single act. Accordingly, each of the instant gift contracts against the Defendant ought to be determined as a whole as to whether it constitutes fraudulent act.

Next, I examine the insolvency of BB. As seen earlier, since each of the instant gift contracts is a single fraudulent act as a whole, it is reasonable to determine whether BB’s insolvency related to each of the instant gift contracts is insolvent on December 30, 2014 when a series of fraudulent acts has been completed. However, according to the evidence as seen earlier, the affirmative and negative property of BB around December 30, 2014 as indicated below [Attachment 2]. As such, it is recognized that BB had been in excess of debt, and each of the instant gift contracts donated KRW 331,00,000 among the sales price of the instant real estate in accordance with each of the instant gift contracts, it is reasonable to determine that each of the instant donations continued to be paid during the pertinent period, solely on the basis that each of the instant donations continued to constitute a fraudulent act that has resulted in the reduction or damage to the common creditors’ joint security against BB, and that each of the instant donations was objectively paid during the pertinent period.

In regard to this, the Defendant’s [Attachment 1] Nos. 1, (3) through (1) were paid by BB to FF as the Defendant’s set-off of tax payment, etc. to FF, or by the Defendant’s account, and the Defendant returned KRW 100,00,000 out of the amount paid to BB on October 30, 2014. [Attachment 1] Nos. 1] 2, 1) because BB had the Defendant’s claim against BB against DD, and (1) it was merely a set-off of KRW 1,785,250, and there was no evidence that BB paid to the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, 00, KRW 20,000, KRW 1,000 from the amount paid to BB on behalf of the Defendant.

3) As long as BB’s intention and the Defendant’s bad faith constituted a fraudulent act objectively, it is presumed that the Defendant’s intentional intent and beneficiary of BB, who is the debtor, were presumed to be in bad faith. Accordingly, the Defendant did not know at all the circumstances that BB would prejudice other general creditors of BB at the time of each of the instant donations because the Defendant did not have any relationship with BB, but did not have any relationship with BB. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant appears to have a considerable relationship with BB and the Defendant appears to have a relationship of relationship. According to each of the statements in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the evidence No. 16-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 16, according to the fact that the Defendant purchased the land and the building on the land at the window of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, 261-2, and each of the instant donations contracts on May 2, 2013, the Defendant purchased the land at the window of Changwon-si, and there is no evidence supporting that the Defendant was a bona fide beneficiary.

Ultimately, as long as each gift contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, the plaintiff, a general creditor, who is damaged by each of the above gift contracts, can seek the revocation thereof.

(b) Methods and scope of cancellation and reinstatement;

According to the above evidence, since the sum of each of the donations in this case exceeds the above amount of delinquent tax, which is the plaintiff's preserved claim, the whole amount of the donations in this case shall be revoked and recovered. Therefore, each of the contracts in this case entered into between BB and the defendant as shown in the separate sheet shall be revoked in its entirety as a fraudulent act, and the defendant shall be obligated to pay the amount of money calculated at the rate of 331,000,000, which is the whole amount of each of the donations in this case, and the amount of money calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from the day following the day when the judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.