(1) The gift contract of KRW 49,755,751, October 28, 2016, concluded between Nonparty C and Defendant A, and Defendant B.

A. Nonparty C bears a total of KRW 538,059,750 tax liability against the Plaintiff.

(The date and time limit of notification of each tax obligation are all prior to October 28, 2016). (b)

Defendant A is the spouse of Defendant C, and Defendant B is the children of Defendant C.

C. C is the representative director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and E paid KRW 150 million to D as agreed amount.

D on October 28, 2016, under the name of “C repayment”, remitted KRW 49,755,751 to Defendant A’s F Bank account (Account Number G). On the same day, the sum of KRW 41,113,820 under the name of “C 14 year 6-12” and KRW 47,101,530 under the name of “C 15 year 1-8” and KRW 88,215,350 under the name of “C 15 year 1-8” was remitted to Defendant B’s Bank account (Account Number H).

(hereinafter referred to as “each remittance of this case”). E.

At the time of October 28, 2016, C’s active property had been KRW 137,971,101 (i.e., KRW 49,755,751, KRW 88,215,350) attributed to C due to the transfer of each of the instant parcels of land, the fourth floor of land, the fourth floor, the Mayang-gu, the Mayang-gu, the Mayang-gu, the Mayang-gu, the Mayang-gu, the Mayang-gu, the Mayang-gu, the Mayang-gu, the Mayang-gu, the Mayang-gu, and the Ma

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 13 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above recognition of the right to revoke the fraudulent act, the plaintiff has a tax claim against the non-party C, and the due date has already arrived.

B. The "legal act detrimental to the obligee", which is the requirement for the obligee's right of revocation as to the establishment of a fraudulent act, refers to a juristic act that causes a decrease in the obligor's assets due to the obligor's disposal of assets, thereby making it impossible for the obligee to fully satisfy the obligee's claims because the obligor's assets fall short of joint security due to a decrease in the obligor's assets or the joint security already insufficient. Thus, such fraudulent act is not only a case where the obligor has already been in excess of obligations prior