A. The sales contract concluded between the Defendants and CCC shall be revoked.

B. The Defendants constitute an OCO 20O.O.O.O. received OO.O.O. received by CCC.

The procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership shall be implemented.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by integrating each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5 and the purport of all pleadings, and no other counter-proof evidence exists.

(i) the right to be preserved;

The non-party CCC sold 20O.O.O.O.O. O, O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-O-O-dong, and did not report the transfer income tax. The Plaintiff notified the 20O.O.O.O.O.O., that the payment deadline was set by 20O.O.O.O., and notified the 20O.O. for the year to which it belongs.

2) dispositive act

CCC entered into a sales contract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant sales contract”) with the Defendants, who are 20O.O.O.O.S., and with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the sole property (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the Defendants on the same day.

was issued.

B. Determination

The obligation to pay capital gains tax is naturally constituted under the law without any separate procedure by the tax authority or the taxpayer on the last day of the month (the month in which the date of the transfer of assets) in which the amount that serves as the tax base of capital gains tax occurs (Article 21(2)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). According to the above acknowledged facts, the said obligation to pay capital gains tax was established 200O.O.O.O.O. (the last day of the month in which the date of the transfer of real estate belongs. CCC sold the instant real estate, which is its sole property, to the Defendants. As such, the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, the creditor, and the intention of deception is presumed. Therefore, the Plaintiff may exercise the

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. Title trust

The Defendants asserted that the instant real estate was held in title by Nonparty DD and EE, the father of the Defendants, and that the instant sales contract does not constitute fraudulent act. If the obligor, as a title trustee, completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the title trustee pursuant to the interim omission registration type title trust or the third party title trust agreement, Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, if the obligor completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the title trustee, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the obligor is null and void. Therefore, even if the obligor concluded a sales contract with a third party on the said real estate and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the obligor, such real estate cannot be deemed as causing a decrease in the obligor’s responsible property. In this case, we examine whether the CCC’s registration of ownership transfer in the instant real estate constitutes a title trust. As to the fact that the CCC received the instant real estate from the said DD and EE, there is no reason to acknowledge the Defendants’ evidence of evidence No. 4, No. 5, No. 6, and No. 7 evidence No. 1 to evidence evidence 3 of the Defendants 1 through F.

(b) Good faith;

The Defendants asserted to the effect that the Defendants were bona fide inasmuch as CCC and the Defendants had known that the transfer income tax should be imposed in the event of a disposal of the real estate through a voluntary auction. However, inasmuch as CCC transferred the real estate to a voluntary auction and transferred the real estate of this case only to the Defendants who are one’s own cCC in excess of the obligation, it is insufficient to recognize that the presumption of bad faith is reversed due to the Defendants’ lack of knowledge that the said assertion alone constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditors, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, the Defendants’ defense is without merit.

3. Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Therefore, the sales contract of this case shall be revoked as a fraudulent act conducted by general creditors including the plaintiff, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration to CCC as a restoration following the revocation of fraudulent act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.