2. The defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for 2/9 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet to AA under the preceding paragraph, for the restoration of the true name.

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

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

2. Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment without holding any pleadings (Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act) and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, 1. Status of parties

A. The Plaintiff has a tax claim against Nonparty AA (hereinafter referred to as Nonparty A’s delinquent taxpayer) amounting to KRW 000 (the portion for which liability for tax payment was established prior to the fraudulent act). B. The Defendant is the birth of Nonparty A’s delinquent taxpayer (the certified copy of evidence No. 2).

2. Establishment of taxable circumstances and preserved claims;

(a) Details of taxation;

1) 소외 체납자게는 소외 회사 CCC(XXX-XX-XXXXX))의 대표이사 이자 과점주주인 DDD(지분율 70%)의 배우자 및 주주(지분율 30%)로서 출자자의 제2차 납세의무가 성립한다.(갑 제3호증 주식발행정법원인별 주주현황).

2) The director of the O-O(hereinafter “Plaintiff”) under the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) designates Nonparty A as the secondary taxpayer of investors of CCC and notifies Nonparty A of (value-Added Tax, etc.) but has the same tax claim as Non-Party A’s delinquent taxpayer. B. The establishment of the preserved claim is made on November 10, 2017.

Since the above liability to pay value-added tax, etc. on the non-party in arrears was established on or before November 15, 2016, which is the date of the instant fraudulent act, there is no problem in becoming a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation. Moreover, in a case where the claim of value-added tax, etc. is recognized as a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation, it is consistent with the Supreme Court’s consistent position that the amount of such claim includes the additional dues and increased additional dues incurred after the fraudulent act and until the time of the closing of argument in fact-finding proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 200), and 000, including additional dues

3. Fraudulent act;

A. If the joint security against the general creditor has decreased as a result of the obligor, who has already been in excess of his/her obligation due to the division of inherited property, renounced his/her right to inherited property while holding a divided agreement on the division of inherited property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007; 2007Da73765, Mar. 13, 2008). In this case, the non-party delinquent may expect the disposition on default on his/her property after the occurrence of default on value-added tax, etc., and the non-party delinquent may conclude an agreement on division of inherited property to give up his/her entire portion of inherited property on November 15, 2016 on the division of inherited property (hereinafter the real property of this case) on each real property listed in the separate sheet, with the agreement on the transfer of ownership by division of inherited property (registration on Oct. 30, 2016).

(b) The deepening of debts in excess;

1) At the time of the fraudulent act, at the time of the fraudulent act, the non-party in arrears owned active and passive properties as shown below 2. (Evidence No. 6)

2) In the deepening fraudulent act due to the reduction of substantial property value, it means that a debtor’s legal act causes a decrease in the debtor’s whole property to the effect that it is impossible to fully satisfy the creditor’s claims due to the reduction of assets by the debtor’s act of disposing of the debtor’s property, i.e., the decrease in joint security of claims or the lack of joint security already in the situation of shortage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102, Mar. 26, 2009). In this case, the non-party defaulter had already been in excess of his obligations as of November 15, 2016, which is the date of the fraudulent act in this case, at the time of 46,601,600 won, including the standard market price at that time, and the total amount of assets appraisal KRW 00,000, X2/900 = 90000, aggregate value of inherited property).

4. The non-party in arrears who is the intention of the deceased will expect the plaintiff's disposition of arrears, such as the seizure of his property, after the occurrence of delinquency in the payment of value-added tax as seen above. The non-party in arrears concluded a division agreement on inherited property among the real estate in this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the defendant. The non-party in arrears knew that it would prejudice the plaintiff, who is the tax authority at the time of the

5. Bad faith of the defendant

The Supreme Court Decision 95Da51908 Decided May 23, 1997 ruled that the creditor who asserts the revocation of the debtor's bad faith in a fraudulent act lawsuit shall bear the burden of proving that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is not a creditor with the burden of proving that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is bad faith, but is a creditor with the burden of proving that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is acting in bad faith. The Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710 Decided April 14, 2006 ruled that the beneficiary was acting in good faith at the time of the fraudulent act shall be supported by objective and objective evidence, and it shall not be concluded that the beneficiary was acting in good faith only on the part of the debtor's unilateral statement or the statement that is just a third party's reasoning at the time of the fraudulent act.

Therefore, in the case of this case, the defendant should be deemed to have been fully aware of the non-party delinquent's status of excess of the delinquent's debt and the intention of dismissal. In addition, in the case of the non-party delinquent's intent, the defendant's bad faith should be presumed. Thus, the defendant must prove the fact that he acted in good faith. 6. Exclusion period

In the course of tracking and investigating a delinquent taxpayer on April 13, 2017, the Plaintiff became aware of a fraudulent act committed by the delinquent taxpayer only by confirming the details of the delinquent taxpayer’s property, a certified copy of the register related to the delinquent taxpayer’s property, family relations, etc., and thus, the instant lawsuit is filed within the exclusion period and is lawful (Article 5(5). The relevant documents related to the application for ownership transfer registration (

In principle, the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer completed in the name of the defendant should be sought. However, the Supreme Court Decision 99Da53704 Decided February 25, 2000 ruled that in addition to seeking cancellation of ownership transfer registration by a person who has registered ownership in his/her own name or by a person who has acquired ownership pursuant to the law, he/she shall be allowed to seek implementation of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer against the present registered titleholder in addition to seeking cancellation of ownership transfer registration in a way to restore the real name of registration, and such a legal principle may also apply to a lawsuit seeking cancellation of fraudulent act. The delinquent taxpayer is a person who has acquired ownership of each of the real estate of this case by the law due to the death of the decedent, and the delinquent taxpayer is a person who has acquired ownership of each of the real estate of this case by the law, if he/she seeks implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation, he/she

8. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the non-party delinquent taxpayer's act of entering into a division agreement of inherited property and completing the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act knowing that it would prejudice general creditors including the plaintiff, who are tax claims, and the defendant also should be deemed to have sufficiently known such facts. Therefore, the plaintiff's cancellation of the agreement on the division of inherited property concluded between the non-party delinquent taxpayer and the defendant regarding the real estate stated in the attached list as stated in the purport of the claim and the plaintiff's claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of the real name