A. The reservation made on September 4, 2006 between the Defendant and Nonparty ○○○ shall be revoked.

B. The defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership, which was completed by No. 16088 on September 5, 2006 by the Cheongju District Court, Dongju District Court, Dongju District Court, and the

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 22, and it seems contrary to this, each entry in the evidence Nos. 4-1 through No. 11-3, and the testimony of the highest number of the witness No. 4-1 to No. 11-3, and there is no counter-proof.

A. On September 2006, at the regular audit of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office, the Plaintiff conducted a tax investigation on the number of houses engaged in the housing construction business under the trade name of ○○○○○○○○-ri 343-○○ in the name of ○○○ Housing, and discovered omitted portion of the reported amount of housing sale in the first and second quarter of 2005.

Accordingly, on March 9, 2007, the Plaintiff issued a tax notice of KRW 51,54,450, value-added tax on the first quarter (from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005) of KRW 16,39,080, value-added tax in the second quarter (from July 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005) of 2005, and the global income tax of KRW 70,903,650, global income tax of KRW 9,035,690, global income tax of KRW 147,793,870, total of KRW 147,793,870, as a result of the increase of income amount.

B. On September 4, 2006, the maximum number of ○○ concluded a pre-sale agreement (hereinafter the instant pre-sale agreement) with the Defendant on each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) and subsequently completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “provisional registration”).

C. In addition to each of the instant real estate, the maximum ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, 159 square meters prior to 350 square meters prior to the time of the instant promise to sell and purchase the instant real estate at the time of the promise to sell and purchase the instant real estate: ① 1,177 square meters prior to 350 square meters; ② 10,177 square meters prior to 10-○412 square meters prior to the same Ri; ④ 802-20-220 equivalent to KRW 63,720,220, totaling KRW 147,793,870, on the other hand, small property was limited to KRW 30,369,863 in addition to the said tax claim, and KRW 48,163,733 won in total.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the ground of the plaintiff's claim

(1) Whether the preserved claim is a preserved claim

In a case where, at the time of a fraudulent act, there is a high probability that the legal relationship, which already forms the basis of the establishment of a claim, is established in the near future, and the probability of such legal relationship is realized in the near future, such claim may also become a preserved claim for the obligee’s right of revocation. In this case, the Plaintiff’s claim for value-added tax, etc. in this case is prior to the sale and purchase contract in this case and the subsequent tax notice is served, and the taxation claim has been established in the near future.

(2) Whether a fraudulent act was committed

The act of completing provisional registration of this case on the basis of the highest number of real estate in excess of debt is a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances.

Even if Park Ho-ho purchased loan claims against the above ○ Credit Union as alleged by the Defendant and excluded it from the small property, the most active property of the largest ○○○○ by offering each of the instant real estate as collateral with the promise to sell and sell the instant real estate and provisional registration is deemed to have not reached a negative property, i.e., a state of exceeding a debt, and thus, barring any special circumstance, it constitutes a fraudulent act.

(3)The intention of the deceased;

In light of the relation between ○○ and the defendant, the taxation claims and the reservation for the sale and purchase of this case, the highest ○○ and the defendant's will to know shall be sufficiently recognized.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(1) The argument

From May 2004 to September 2005, the maximum number of ○○○ used the pertinent housing building business to borrow KRW 174,076,50 on several occasions from ○○○, the husband of the Defendant and the Defendant, the maximum number of her husband. As the Defendant urged the maximum number of ○○ to repay the above loan, the maximum number of ○○ entered into the instant trade reservation with the Defendant, and completed the instant provisional registration as a security. Moreover, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff’s above tax claim was established against the maximum number of ○○○, and thus, was not a fraudulent act.

(2) Determination

If a debtor in excess of his/her obligation provided the instant real estate as security to a specific creditor, or provided each of the instant real estate as security by the debtor, which is his/her own responsible property, thereby causing a decrease in the debtor's responsible property, such act shall be deemed a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances, and the defendant's intention is presumed also.

The testimony of the evidence Nos. 1 through 11-3, witness Nos. 1 to 11-3, witness Nos. 4, 50, 50, red ○○○, the highest ○○, and the highest ○○, which seems contrary to this, are insufficient to reverse the above presumption, and there is no other evidence contrary to the above presumption.

Rather, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant had lent the above KRW 174,076,50 to the largest number of ○○, but did not have received any repayment from him. However, according to the entire purport of the pleadings in each of the statements Nos. 21 and 22, the Defendant was recognized on November 25, 2005 as having received the above KRW 150,00,00 from the Defendant’s domicile as a substitute payment in lieu of ○○-dong 902-○○○ 101,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Furthermore, in light of the relationship between ○○ and the Defendant, the background leading up to the establishment of the above taxation claim, and the developments leading up to the reservation of the sale of this case, the Defendant seems to have fully known that the Plaintiff’s taxation claim regarding the maximum number at the time of the reservation

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion does not seem to have any mother or reason.

3. Conclusion

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