2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 7,266,170 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On October 20, 2000, the decision that the agreement on division of the inherited property on October 20, 200 between AA and the defendant on each real property listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked and the decision mentioned in paragraph 2

A. The Plaintiff has a taxation claim of KRW 77,266,170 (a claim created between August 5, 2010 and September 5, 000) in total to AA.

B. AA’s father BB died on May 24, 00. his wife, children, and three other parties, who were their inheritors, agreed on the division of inherited property on October 20, 200, with each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as the Defendant’s sole ownership on October 20, 200, and accordingly on October 30, 200, the registration of ownership was completed on May 24, 000 in the future of the Defendant.

C. On October 29, 000, the instant real estate acquired an agreement of KRW 670,000 to the Southern-gu Seoul Metropolitan City on October 29, 000.

D. AA does not own any property other than 423 m2,00,000 m2,000 (204, 7,639,000 won) on the Gyeongbuk-gun AB, 000,000 m2.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on this safety defense

The Defendant asserts that the agreement division between AA and the Defendant regarding the instant real estate inheritance shares is fraudulent, and that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking revocation is unlawful as it was filed after the lapse of the short-term exclusion period of one year. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff had already known the cause of revocation one year prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and therefore, the Defendant’s principal safety defense is without merit.

B. Judgment on the merits

(1) Tax claims against AA already established prior to the division of inherited property by agreement between the defendant and AA shall be the preserved right of the claim for revocation of the fraudulent act in this case.

(2) If a debtor in excess of his/her obligation waives his/her right to his/her share in the inherited property in consultation on division of the inherited property, and thus the joint security against the general creditor has decreased, it constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007). Therefore, the transfer of the inheritance share and value of the instant real property to the defendant by AA without any other property, other than farmland and automobiles, should be revoked as a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, and the defendant, the beneficiary, is presumed to have known of such transfer.

(3) The defendant asserted that the real estate of this case was owned by the defendant as a sole ownership of the real estate of this case by the division of inherited property, but it cannot be a fraudulent act that causes a decrease in the AA's liability property. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion that the real estate of this case was a real defendant's property, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

(4) Therefore, in principle, the Defendant shall return the instant real estate to AA as a result of the performance of the duty of restitution following the revocation of fraudulent act, but since the instant real estate was already transferred to a third party and thus it was impossible to return it, it shall compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 77,266,170, which is the Plaintiff’s claim amount within the scope of the value of the inheritance share of AA, in lieu of the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.