A. The purchase and sale reservation and superficies contract concluded on April 15, 2010 between the Defendant and ChoA, and all the sales contract concluded on September 20, 201 shall be revoked.

B. On April 20, 2010, the Defendant: (a) filed a provisional registration for the right to claim ownership transfer, which was completed in accordance with the receipt of No. 15036 on April 20, 2010; (b) filed a registration for the creation of superficies that was completed in accordance with the receipt of No. 15305 on the same date; and (c) filed on November 7, 2011 under the receipt of No. 48618

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. The director of the Namyang District Tax Office and the director of the Mapo District Tax Office under the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office imposed capital gains tax on Choyang as stated in the following table (hereinafter referred to as "tax claim in this case") and on April 1, 2013 due to the lack of payment by Cho Nam, the base tax amount in arrears is the OOO.

Table 2 see Court Decision 2

B. As to the real estate listed in the separate list owned by him (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case"), the ChoA entered into a contract for sale and purchase, a sales contract, a superficies contract (hereinafter referred to as the "contract for sale of this case"), a contract for sale and purchase of this case, and a contract for the creation of superficies of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "each contract of this case") with the defendant as listed below, and entered into a provisional registration for ownership transfer, a provisional registration for ownership transfer, a registration for the creation of superficies (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional registration of this case"), a registration for the creation of superficies of this case, and a registration for the creation of superficies of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of this case"), respectively, with the defendant.

See Table 4 see Court Decision 4

C. Meanwhile, the instant land was subject to a provisional disposition by the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund as indicated in the following table. The Plaintiff completed the registration of seizure for the collection of tax claims, and the Plaintiff was notified on November 7, 201 that the said registration is subject to ex officio revocation due to the completion of the ownership transfer registration of this case on November 7, 2011. The said registration of seizure was revoked on November 29, 201 (hereinafter referred to as “registration of seizure completed on September 15, 2010”), and “registration of seizure completed on August 10, 201.”

The registration of seizure is called "registration of seizure" and the registration of each seizure of this case is called "registration of seizure".

Table 3 Reference to the Judgment

D. At the time of the instant promise to sell and purchase, the Defendant, the head of the Mediation Committee, is a corporation whose representative director, and the shareholder was regularCC, ED (ASEAN’s children), EE (which is women and women of the regularCC), and EA had 36,83 shares of the Defendant (9.70%) at the time of the instant promise to sell and purchase.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 2 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff became aware that the provisional registration of this case and the establishment of superficies have been completed on the land of this case at the time of the completion of the registration of seizure of this case. At the time of the registration of seizure of this case, the Plaintiff became aware that the provisional registration of this case and the establishment of superficies have been completed, and that the provisional registration of the Credit Guarantee Fund was completed on November 7, 2011, notified of the cancellation of each of the registrations of this case on November 7, 2011, the Plaintiff became aware that each of the registrations of this case was caused by fraudulent act at least on November 7, 2011. Thus, the lawsuit of this case filed for

B. Determination

In the exercise of the right of revocation, the "date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the obligor becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while knowing that the obligor would prejudice the obligee. This is merely insufficient to recognize the fact that the obligor conducted a disposal act of the property, and that such a juristic act is an act detrimental to the obligee. In other words, it is necessary to inform the obligor of the fact that the obligor could not fully satisfy the claim due to the deficiency in joint security of the claim or the lack of joint security already in the short condition, and that there was an intent to harm the obligor. The burden of proof as to the lapse of the limitation period is against the obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da46483, Nov. 9, 2006; 2010Da71684, Nov. 13, 2011).

The provisional registration of this case was made prior to the registration of seizure of this case, and the provisional disposition of the Credit Guarantee Fund was completed prior to the registration of seizure of this case, and the notification of cancellation of each of the registrations of seizure of this case was given to the Plaintiff due to the registration of transfer of ownership of this case as seen above. However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was aware of the financial status of Cho, or that there was a shortage of joint security due to each of the contracts of this case, or that the shortage of the joint security becomes worse or the shortage of the shortage of the security due to each of the contracts of this case, and that Cho was known to the Defendant by completing each of the registrations of this case, while being aware that it would prejudice the creditor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

3. Judgment on the merits

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

As seen above, the taxation claim of this case was already established before April 15, 2010, which was the date of the trade reservation of this case and the date of the contract to establish superficies, and thus, is subject to the revocation of fraudulent act as to each contract of this case.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

1) Whether the AA is insolvent

(A)affirmative property;

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the active property of ChoA as of April 15, 2010 is a total of OOO members as shown below.

See 6 pages of the judgment

B) Petty property

According to the evidence mentioned in the preceding paragraph and the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the small property of ChoA is at least I) OOO of the tax debt of this case (=OOOO + OOOOwon +), II), OO also is an OOO of the collateral security debt for the land of this case, and (iii) an OOO of the debt for the Credit Guarantee Fund, the creditor applying for compulsory auction on the land of this case, (i) an OOO of the aggregate of the debt amount for the Credit Guarantee Fund, the creditor applying for compulsory auction on the land of this case.

C) Sub-decision

As above, at the time of April 15, 2010, ChoA had been in excess of its obligation in excess of its positive property.

(ii)the intent to commit fraudulent acts and to commit fraud;

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the act of ChoA’s offering or selling its real estate as security to a defendant who has a special relationship with him/her constitutes a fraudulent act by reducing joint security in relation to general creditors, barring any special circumstance. In light of the property status of ChoA at the time, the time of entering into the promise to trade and sales contract of this case, the relationship between ChoA and the defendant, and the defendant’s bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary.

C. Defendant’s bona fide defense

1) The defendant's assertion

The Defendant concluded each of the instant contracts on the following grounds, and thus was unaware of the fact that each of the instant contracts constitutes a fraudulent act.

A) Around June 2002, 2002, the Defendant’s representative director Jeong-CC lent OOOOOO to ChoA to acquire the instant land. At his own discretion, ChoA made a provisional registration under the FF name of FF on the instant land, and the said loan claim was transferred by the Defendant, and completed the instant provisional registration and the registration of creation of superficies to secure this.

B) On February 22, 2011, the Credit Guarantee Fund applied for a compulsory auction on the instant land, the Defendant purchased the instant land from the ChoA on September 20, 201, and subsequently withdrawn the said auction on behalf of the Credit Guarantee Fund in lieu of the said loan, and subsequently completed the instant registration of ownership transfer.

2) Determination

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, it is recognized that the contract was made between ChoA and the defendant on September 20, 2011 that the defendant purchased the land of this case from the OOOOO, the defendant paid the OOO on September 20, 201, the 21st of the same month, the OOOOO on September 21, 201, the 22th of the same month, and the 22th of the same month.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of the lending since the Defendant failed to submit the loan certificate, financial data, etc. as to the fact that Jung-CC lent OOOOO to Cho-A around June 2002. On September 20, 201, the sales contract of this case was concluded on September 20, 201, each of the instant land and the provisional seizure registration of the Credit Guarantee Fund was already made. In light of the relationship between ChoA and the Defendant, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant is a bona fide beneficiary, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

(d) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Therefore, each of the instant contracts constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus should be revoked, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of each of the instant registrations to the Mediation Agency with its restoration to its original state.

4. Conclusion

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