The gift contract concluded on May 14, 2018 with respect to 331 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seoul, shall be revoked.

A. (1) B, after transferring an aggregate building located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the ground of Yongsan-gu to the Plaintiff and one other, the Plaintiff transferred the ownership transfer registration on January 29, 2018. (2) The Plaintiff notified B of the transfer income tax on May 10 and September 1, 2018 on two occasions. As of May 7, 2019, the transfer income tax in arrears with B reaches 65,829,610 won.

B. On May 14, 2018, B entered into a contract with the Defendant to donate 331 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) prior to Chungcheongnam-gun budget C (hereinafter “instant donation contract”) with the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the instant donation contract with the Daejeon District Court Budget Office No. 10990 on May 17, 2018.

C. At the time of donation B, self-sufficiency B was in excess of debt around May 14, 2018, when the donation contract of this case was concluded.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. On May 14, 2018, the date of the instant donation contract, which was the date of the establishment of the preservation claim, several months passed since B had already completed transactions that served as the basis of imposition of capital gains tax, and the notification of some capital gains tax was made to B.

Therefore, at the time of the instant donation contract claiming the Plaintiff as a fraudulent act, there is a high probability that the Plaintiff’s preserved claim has already been established or at least the legal relationship that forms the basis of the establishment of the claim has already occurred and that a claim is established in the near future. Therefore, in principle, claims protected by the creditor’s creditor’s creditor’s creditor’s creditor’s right of revocation corresponding to the case where the preserved claim is established should be deemed as a fraudulent act before the act was committed. However, at the time of the fraudulent act, there is