2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

3. The defendant shall bear the costs of the lawsuit.

A. The director of the Namcheon District Office under the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office has imposed the global income tax payment notice on the leB as follows, but the leB is delinquent in the payment of the global income:

B. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment1”) was owned by leB, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 8, 2010 by the Incheon District Court and the receipt of No. 79318 on September 9, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant sales contract and transfer of ownership”).

C. Prior to the instant sales contract, each registration of the establishment of the first-class collateral security (the actual claim amount, KRW 00, KRW 000, and hereinafter referred to as the “first-class collateral security”) (the actual claim amount, KRW 000, and KRW 000, and KRW 2-class collateral security (the actual claim amount, KRW 000, and hereinafter referred to as the “second-class collateral security”) was completed on the apartment of this case, which is the debtor, CC, and creditor Dpet Industrial Co., Ltd., and the second-class collateral security (the actual claim amount, KRW 00, and hereinafter referred to as the “second-class collateral”) was completed on September 201, which was the sales contract of this case.

D. At the time of the instant sales contract, leB had no particular property except for the ownership of the apartment of this case, the market price of which is equivalent to KRW 000, with positive property, and as small property, there was a debt with the above 1 and 2 collateral security in addition to the tax claim against the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, evidence 1-7, and evidence 1 (if any, number 1) and the whole purport of the pleading]

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant sales contract was a fraudulent act and sought compensation for the value compensation in lieu of the cancellation and the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership of this case, and the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit filed on November 16, 201, which was filed on November 16, 201 when the exclusion period of one year elapsed, was unlawful.

B. The plaintiff knew about the disposal of the apartment in this case by leB at the end of the sales contract in this case, or the act does not meet the joint security of the claim or has already been insufficient.

There is no evidence to support that a security has become insufficient to fully satisfy the claims due to the lack of one story, and that there is no evidence to support that a leB knew of its intention to harm, and that the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

According to the above facts, it was highly probable that the Plaintiff’s claim against leB had already existed at the time of the instant sales contract (the taxation claims listed in Nos. 2-13 above), and that the underlying cause of the occurrence was established, and its probability was realized in the near future (the above table Nos. 1) and the Plaintiff has the preserved claim that can exercise the right to cancel the fraudulent act against the instant sales contract.

B. Whether the fraudulent act was established

(1) In the absence of special circumstances, it is easy for the debtor to sell and consume real estate, which is the only property, and to change it into money easily for consumption, it means a fraudulent act, and the debtor's intent, which is the subjective element of a fraudulent act, means to recognize that there is a lack of joint collateral for claims, and it does not require or intent to harm the creditor, and where the debtor sells real estate, which is the only property, and changes into money easily for consumption, the debtor's intent is presumed, and the burden of proof that the purchaser or the transferor did not have bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da84458, May 14, 2009

(2) As seen earlier, since leB sold the apartment of this case, which is its sole property, and changed the sales contract of this case into money easily for consumption, the sales contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the creditor, barring any special circumstances, and as long as leB’s intent to harm the creditor is recognized, the defendant’s malicious will as the beneficiary is presumed.

C. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(1) The Defendant asserts that, at all times, the Defendant did not know the Plaintiff’s tax liability against the Plaintiff, and that, in fact, purchased the instant apartment by paying the purchase price in full, it would be a bona fide beneficiary.

(2) However, even after the sales contract of this case, the convergenceB and its family members were residing in the apartment of this case, and the defendant was residing in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, its original domicile, without any dispute between the parties, and according to these, each entry of Eul and Eul (including the number number, if any) is insufficient to recognize that the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(d) Methods of reinstatement;

(1) In a case where a legal act on a real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, in principle, it is necessary to cancel the fraudulent act and order the restoration of real estate itself, such as cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, but where a real estate on which a mortgage has been established has been transferred to a fraudulent act, such fraudulent act shall be established only within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount of the mortgage from the value of the real estate. In the case where the registration of mortgage was cancelled due to repayment after the fraudulent act, and where a fraudulent act is cancelled, order the restoration of the real estate itself to the extent that the portion which was not initially registered as a joint security of general creditors would go against equity, and thus, order the restoration of the real estate to the extent that the secured debt amount of the real estate was not deducted from the value of the real estate, and as a matter of principle, it is possible to seek damages after cancelling the fraudulent act within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount of the mortgage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da182469, May 31, 2007).

(2) As to the instant apartment, the first-served mortgage cancellation for the instant apartment after the instant sales contract was recognized as above, and the restitution following the cancellation of the instant sales contract is bound by the method of compensation for value.

(3) Furthermore, the market price of the apartment at the time of the instant purchase and sale contract is 000 won as seen earlier, and it is confirmed that the subsequent value is the same, and the actual secured amount of the first-mortgage is 00 won, and the actual secured amount of the second-mortgage is 000 won, and 000 won ( =00 - 000 won - 000 won) is calculated by deducting the secured amount of the first-class and second-class secured claim from the value of the apartment at the instant apartment, and 00 won exceeds 00 won of the Plaintiff’s claim in the instant case. Accordingly, the instant sales contract at the time of the instant purchase and sale contract should be revoked within the limit of 00 won, which is the Plaintiff’s claim amount, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff with compensation for damages calculated at a rate of 5% per annum from the day following the judgment that had been paid to the Plaintiff with compensation for delay calculated by the Civil Act to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons, and it is decided as per Disposition.