2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties, or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings on the testimony of the witness of the party Na○○○○, the evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 10, and the evidence of subparagraph 5.

A. The sale of real estate by Nonparty ○○ and the default of transfer income tax

(1) On August 11, 2003, the above maximum ○○○ entered into a sales contract with Nonparty Na○○ and Kim○○○○○○ on his share of co-ownership in the land of ○○○○○○○○○○○, with the purchase price of KRW 1.2.1 million on the date of the contract, and the down payment was paid KRW 1.2 billion on the 19th day of the same month, but was paid the remainder of KRW 1.9 billion, but did not voluntarily report the transfer income tax under the above sales contract.

(2) Accordingly, on August 1, 2004, the head of ○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control issued a notice of the said transfer income tax amount at KRW 168.654,378. However, on May 26, 2005, when the said maximum ○○○○ did not pay the said amount, the tax amount in arrears including additional dues as of May 26, 2005 (hereinafter “instant tax amount”) reached KRW 189,904,80.

B. Partial payment out of the sales amount is made to the passbook in the name of Defendant ○○○.

Of the above sales amount received by the above ○○○ from the purchaser, the sum of KRW 120 million on August 12, 2003, and KRW 7.80 million on August 22, 2003, the sum of KRW 660 million on the 22th of the same month, which was deposited in the head of the ○○ bank in the name of Defendant ○○○○, the external grandchildren of the above ○○○○○○○.

C. The purchase and sale of apartment by Defendant Ma○○ and the lease contract by Defendant Kim○-○

(1) On November 17, 2003, Defendant ○○○○○ apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) purchased from Nonparty ○○○○○○○○○○○, Seoul from Nonparty ○○○ on KRW 5.1 million and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on December 1, 201 of the same year.

(2) On March 20, 2005, Defendant ○○ entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty ○○, setting the sales price of the instant apartment as KRW 5,80,00,000, and at the time of the remainder payment, Defendant ○○ agreed to enter into the lease agreement with the seller as a lessee by deducting the lease deposit from the balance. Accordingly, on May 3, 2005, Defendant ○○ entered into the lease agreement with the lessee by setting the lease deposit as KRW 2,20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff concealed the purchase price of KRW 1,210,000,00,000, which is the only property with the knowledge that the above maximum ○○○ would be subject to the transfer income tax, and donated the above gold KRW 5,100,000,00 among them to the defendant ○○○, such gift act by the above maximum ○○○○ constitutes a fraudulent act and thus, it should be revoked within the scope of the tax amount in arrears in this case. When it is anticipated that the above gift act would cause a fraudulent act on the ground of the tax amount in arrears in this case, while the defendant ○○ would be expected to bring about a fraudulent act on the ground of the tax amount in arrears, he disposes of the apartment case, which is the only property, while by having the defendant Kim○○ enter into a lease contract with the purchaser of the apartment in this case, the amount equivalent to the lease deposit should be revoked within the scope of the tax amount in arrears and the defendant Kim○ shall return the amount equivalent

As to this, Defendant ○○○ did not receive a donation of the above money because he stored KRW 7.8 million out of the above purchase price in his name in his deposit account upon the above ○○○○○○○’s request, and returned immediately. Defendant ○○○ did not purchase the apartment of this case with the money that the above ○○○ transferred to Defendant ○○○’s account. Moreover, Defendant ○○ did not purchase the apartment of this case with the money that the above ○○○○ transferred to Defendant ○○○○ account. Defendant ○○ asserted that the apartment of this case was merely the lessee of the apartment of this case under the name of division of property, child rearing expenses, and solatium

3. Judgment on issues (whether fraudulent act is constituted)

First, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is based on the premise that monetary transaction between the Defendant ○○ and Defendant ○○ constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, this is examined.

A. Principles

The minimum lawsuit of fraudulent act stipulated in Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act is the kind of lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act as stipulated in Article 406 of the Civil Act, and there is no special provision that allows it to be different from the provisions of the Civil Act in its exercise, so the obligee’s right of revocation as stipulated in Article 406 of the Civil Act shall meet the requirements of the above Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 000○○○○), and in a case where the obligor knowingly performed a legal act that reduces the obligor’s whole property as a joint security of the general creditor with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, the juristic act which is subject to the obligee’s right of revocation is granted to the obligee to preserve and preserve the obligor’s joint security by denying the effect of the reduction and restoring the obligor’s property to the original condition, and it means a case where the obligor’s active property is reduced above the total amount of the obligor’s obligation due to the obligor’s property act. Even if it is a debtor’s property juristic act, it cannot be said a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 00

B. Facts recognized

The following facts may be acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties, or a dispute between the parties, or a statement of Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 20-1 through 3, Gap evidence 24-1 through 3, and a witness Na○○○ of the trial court, by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

(1)On August 12, 2003, the above maximum ○○ received KRW 1.21 million from the above Na○○○, etc., the sum of KRW 1.20 million out of the above Na○○○○○, and KRW 7.8 billion in the account of Defendant ○○○○○○○ Bank in the name of Defendant ○○○○○○○○○.

(2) After that, Defendant ○○ deposited KRW 40 million on September 17, 2003 and KRW 10 million on October 7, 2010, KRW 780,000,000 in total, KRW 3770,000 on October 7, 200 of the same year into the ○○ Bank Deposit Account in the largest name. The said KRW 370,000,000 was paid as part of the above sales amount.

(3) The above maximum amount of KRW 50 million on October 6, 2003, KRW 80,000 on the 15th of the same month, and KRW 40,000 on November 18, 201 of the same year were withdrawn respectively from the bank account of ○○○ Bank. Of the above amount, KRW 40,000 on November 18, 2003, Defendant ○○ was used as part of the sales contract amount in purchasing the apartment of this case by Defendant ○○.

C. Determination

If the facts are identical, even if the amount of KRW 7.8 million, which is part of the above purchase price, was deposited in Defendant ○○○○○○ bank’s deposit account, it is difficult to view that the above maximum amount of KRW 7.8 billion was donated to Defendant ○○○○○○○, on the sole basis of the fact that at least KRW 4.1 billion was deposited in the above maximum amount of KRW 4.1 billion, and the above amount of KRW 7.8 billion was deposited in the above ○○○ bank’s deposit account.

According to the above facts, even if ○○○○○○○○’s maximum amount of money was deposited in the above 780 million won, the above ○○○○○○○ was paid KRW 1.2 billion with the above ○○○○○○○, etc. at the time of payment of the above ○○○○○, so the above ○○○○ was paid KRW 1.2 billion with the above ○○○○○○, etc., so even after the payment of KRW 7.8 billion, at least the remaining KRW 4.3 billion with the Defendant○○, still remains in number, and at the time of deposit in the above ○○○○○○○’s account on August 12, 2003, it cannot be deemed that the above ○○○○○○○○○’s total amount of money was a claim against KRW 1.9 billion with the above ○○○○○○’s total amount of money deposited in the above ○○○○○ account.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants should be dismissed without any further review, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified with this conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.