2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 296,575,500 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. Tax claims in relation to the development of the Plaintiff’s stock company in △△

1) The development company of Do, Do, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul Special Metropolitan City Development”) is a corporation for the purpose of real estate sale and lease business, and filed a report on corporate tax and value-added tax

① Corporate tax in 201: A person who filed a return on the amount of tax payable on March 30, 2012 (i.e., calculated tax amount of KRW 190,247,931 (i.e., KRW 190,250,421 - Amount of tax paid at source of KRW 2,490) and filed an application for installment payment of KRW 95,000,000, which is payable until March 31, 2012, excluding KRW 95,247,931, out of the said amount of tax, to be paid by March 31, 2012 pursuant to Article 64(2) of the Corporate Tax Act.

② The first value-added tax in 2012: A tax amount payable on July 25, 2012 is KRW 4,260,900 (i.e., the amount of tax payable: KRW 90,901,598 - the amount of tax payable - the amount of tax payable to be deducted 4,400 - the amount of tax unpaid for preliminary return 86,636,298).

(3) Interim prepayment of corporate tax, 2012 (from January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012 during the target period):

I’s tax amount for interim prepayment on August 27, 2012 = (calculated tax amount of 190,250,421 won - original tax amount of 2,490 won - amount of tax paid at source in the immediately preceding year - 1/2, and 47,00,000 won remaining after subtracting the amount of tax payable at 48,123,965 won, from the amount of tax paid at source, shall be applied for installment in accordance with Article 64(2) of the Corporate Tax Act.

2) Accordingly, the Defendant imposed taxes (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax claim”) as in the column of “value of notice” as indicated below on the tax amount reported by the development of △△△△ in relation to the development of △△△△ in addition to the amount of additional taxes on the following table.

Table Omission of the Table

(b) Disposal of the property of the development of △△;

on July 23, 2012, a list 1, 2, attached Table 1, 2, to the Defendant, who is the son of the representative of the development of △△△△△, the Defendant.

On August 9, 2012, the transfer of ownership (hereinafter referred to as "transfer of ownership") based on the instant sales contract was completed to the Defendant on the sale (hereinafter referred to as "the instant real estate") of the registered real estate (hereinafter referred to as "the instant real estate"), and on August 9, 2012.

C. The Defendant’s act of establishing a collateral on the instant real property

On September 2, 2013, the defendant completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage") with respect to the real estate in this case to the agricultural cooperative at issue on September 2, 2013.

(1) Real estate listed in Appendix 1: 585,000,000 won with maximum debt amount.

(2) Real estate listed in Appendix 2: 611,00,000 won with maximum debt amount

(3) Real estate listed in Appendix 3: 234,000,000 won with maximum debt amount.

(d) Seizure, etc. of the Plaintiff’s development property in Do;

1) 원고는 2012. 7. 19. ☆☆개발의 2011년도 법인세를 지급받기 위하여 ☆☆개발이 소유하던 □□시 □□구 반지동 □□ ▲▲▲타운(이하 '▲▲▲타운'이라 한다) 제1011호를 압류하고, 한국자산관리공사에 공매를 의뢰하였다.

2) ▲▲▲타운 제1011호는 2015. 9. 21. 190,000,000원에 매각되었는데, 원고 산하 ▽▽세무서는 2015. 10. 22. 위 매각대금 중 182,985,860원을 ☆☆개발의 2013년도 법인세로 충당하였다.

[Ground of Recognition] : Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 13 through 16 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence No. 1, fact inquiry results against the Korea Asset Management Corporation of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Formation of preserved claims

1) Comprehensively taking account of the facts and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s instant taxation claim in relation to the development of △△△△△, the value-added tax for January 2012, and the corporate tax for July 23, 2012, which was the date of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, were notified after July 23, 2012. However, the date of establishing the abstract tax liability for each of the said taxation claims was the date of signing the instant sales contract on June 30, 2012, and there was a high probability that each of the said taxation claims would be notified based on the corresponding legal relations in the near future. Since it was highly probable that each of the said taxation claims was imposed on September 4, 2012 and October 2, 2012 and December 3, 2012, the instant taxation claim becomes the preserved claim for fraudulent act.

2) Ultimately, in full view of the facts seen earlier and the statement in Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff

It is recognized that the tax claim of KRW 296,575,50 was held in total after adding additional tax to the reported tax amount and deducting the amount of partial repayment for the development of △△△△△ in November 2015.

Table Omission of the Table

3) As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s disposition of imposition was erroneous, or that the development of △△△ in the instant tax claim was repaid. In addition, as long as the instant tax imposition disposition is not null and void, it is difficult to deem that the disposition of imposition was erroneous in light of the fairness of the administrative act. There is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a significant and apparent defect, and there is no evidence to support that Defendant △△ in the instant tax claim was repaid by Defendant △ in the instant case. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’

4) 또한 피고는 원고가 ☆☆개발의 2011년도 법인세를 지급받기 위하여 ▲▲▲타운 제1011호를 공매하고도 그 매각대금을 2011년도 법인세가 아닌 2013년도 법인세에 충당한 것이 부당하다는 취지로 주장한다. 살피건대, 국세징수법에 의한 체납처분절차에서 그 압류에 관계되는 국세가 여럿 있고 공매대금 중 그 국세들에 배분되는 금액이 그 국세들의 총액에 부족한 경우에 세무서장이 민법상 법정변제충당의 법리에 따르지 아니하고 어느 국세에 먼저 충당하였다고 하더라도, 체납자의 변제이익을 해하는 것과 같은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 조치가 위법하다고 할 수 없는데(대법원 2002. 3. 15. 선고 99다35447 판결 참조), ① 집행법원에 교부청구를 하여 받은 금전의 배분에 관하여 국세징수법 제80조 제2항이 "교부청구에 관계되는 국세・가산금과 체납처분비에 충당한다."라고 규정하고 있을 뿐 민법 제477조의 적용을 받는지에 관하여는 명확한 규정이 없는 점, ② 설령 민법 제477조가 적용된다고 가정하더라도 같은 조 제3호에 따라 납부기한이 먼저 도래하였는지 여부를 판단하기 이전에 같은 조 제2호에 따라 체납자에게 변제이익이 많은 국세가 어느 국세인지 가려야 하는데, 국세징수법 제22조 제1항은 "체납된 국세를 납부하지 아니한 때에는 납부기한이 경과한 날로부터 매 1월이 경과할 때마다 체납된 국세의 1천분의 12에 상당하는" 중가산금을 가산금에 가산하여징수하도록 하되 "이 경우 중가산금을 가산하여 징수하는 기간은 60월을 초과하지 못한다"라고 규정하고 있으므로 지연손해금의 성격을 갖는 중가산금이 가산된 횟수가 적은 국세, 즉 납부기한이 뒤에 도래한 국세가 체납자인 ☆☆개발에 변제이익이 많다고 볼 여지도 있는 점을 고려하면, 원고가 ▲▲▲타운 제1011호의 공매대금을 납부기한이 늦게 도래한 2013년도 법인세에 먼저 충당한 행위가 체납자인 ☆☆개발의 변제이익을 해한다고 보기 어렵다. 따라서 피고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

B. The property status of the development of △△△ at the time of the instant contract

(1) Active property of the development of Do governor in Seoul Special Metropolitan City

In full view of the above facts and the statements in Gap 7 through 9, and 12 (including paper numbers), and the fact-finding results of the fact-finding on the knive industry corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the knive industry") of this court, the development of △△△△△ was one of the active properties of 4,748,775,589 won as follows at the time of July 23, 2012.

Table Omission of the Table

On July 23, 2012, the Defendant asserts that the deposit claim of the development of Do Do dong should be added to the active property. However, there is no evidence to recognize that the development of Do Gun dong was holding the deposit on July 23, 2012. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2) The small assets of the development of the Do governor in Seoul Special Metropolitan City

In full view of the above facts and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 12 (including paper numbers), and the fact-finding results in the fact-finding of the court with respect to the Gunndong Industries Co., Ltd., the development of △△△△△ was a small property with a total of KRW 3,167,306,424 as follows as of July 23, 2012.

Table Omission of the Table

C. Establishment of fraudulent act

“1) A juristic act detrimental to a creditor, who is the requirement for a creditor’s right of revocation, refers to a juristic act that causes a decrease in the debtor’s assets due to the act of disposing of the debtor’s assets, thereby making it impossible to fully satisfy the creditor’s claims. As such, such fraudulent act may be established not only in cases where the debtor has already been in excess of his/her obligations prior to the disposal of assets, but also in cases where the debtor has been placed in excess of his/her obligations due to the act in question, such as a transfer of money, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da6808, Apr. 29, 2005; 201Da82360, Feb. 23, 2012).

On July 23, 2012, the sales contract of this case, dated July 23, 2012, is to reduce the common creditor's joint security, and it constitutes a fraudulent act, and the intention of the development of Doi-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-

① At the time of July 23, 2012, the development of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Do (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”) had positive property in excess of KRW 1,581,469,165 (affirmative property 4,748,775,589 - 3,167,306,424). However, due to the conclusion of the instant sales contract and completion of the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real property to the Defendant, the development of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Do (affirmative property 3,048,775,589 - actively property 3,167,306,424) exceeded positive property.

② Although the purchase price of the instant sales contract falls under a large amount of KRW 1.7 billion, the Defendant did not submit evidence on the source of funds including account details.

③ On July 23, 2012, the development of △△△ in Seoul Special Metropolitan City entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate in approximately three weeks, unlike ordinary transactions.

D. Defendant’s bona fide beneficiary defense

1) At the time of the instant sales contract, the Defendant asserted that the instant sales contract was a bona fide beneficiary who was unaware of the fact that the instant sales contract would prejudice the general creditors of the development of △△△△ inasmuch as it did not know that the instant sales contract would prejudice the general creditors of the development of △△

2) The fact that the beneficiary was unaware of the fraudulent act in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act is the beneficiary.

The burden of proof exists, and in recognizing that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, objective and acceptable evidence should be supported, and only the debtor's unilateral statement or a statement that is merely a third party's reasoning, it should not be readily concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da64066, Jul. 22, 2010).

3) In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the facts as seen earlier and the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the Defendant: (i) the representative director of the Si/Gun/Gu development; (ii) the Defendant did not submit the sales contract and the evidence on the source of funds, including account details, even though the purchase price of the instant sales contract falls under a large amount of KRW 1.7 billion; and (iii) the development of Si/Gun/Gu in Seoul and the Defendant entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendant on July 23, 2012 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant real estate in approximately 30,000,000,000 won, unlike ordinary transactions, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was aware that the development of Si/Gun/Gu in Korea was in excess of the obligation due to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

(e) Scope of revocation of fraudulent act and methods of reinstatement;

(i) the method of reinstatement;

A) If a creditor’s revocation of fraudulent act and a claim for restitution are acknowledged, the beneficiary is obligated to return the subject matter of the fraudulent act to the debtor as a restoration, and if it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the subject matter of the fraudulent act, the beneficiary is obligated to compensate for the equivalent amount of the value of the subject matter of the fraudulent act as a performance of the duty to restore if it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the subject matter. Here, “the return of the subject matter is impossible or considerably difficult” refers to cases where the realization of the subject matter cannot be expected in light of the social experience rules or the concept of transaction, not simply absolute or physical impossibility. Thus, in cases where a third party acquires the subject matter of the fraudulent act after acquiring the right of mortgage, etc., the creditor may seek compensation against the beneficiary instead of the return of the subject matter (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da57139, Feb. 9, 201).

B) In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, the Defendant is found to have completed the establishment registration of the instant real estate to the agricultural cooperative at the time of the instant sales contract on September 2, 2013, which was after the sales contract of the instant case. Thus, the Plaintiff may seek compensation for the value against the Defendant.

2) Scope of revocation of fraudulent act

A) In a case where a part of a fraudulent act is revoked and compensation for value is made, the revocation and compensation for value shall be limited to the smaller amount between the creditor’s preserved claim and the joint collateral value of the instant real estate subject to the fraudulent act and the creditor’s preserved claim.

B) In full view of the facts seen earlier and the purport of Gap evidence No. 3 (including additional numbers) and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s preserved claims amounting to KRW 296,575,500, and the real estate of this case was recognized as having not been established any security at the time of the instant sales contract. As such, the joint collateral value of the real estate of this case is presumed to be KRW 1.7 billion, which is the value of the instant sales contract that covers the Plaintiff’s preserved claims.

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, the sales contract of this case shall be revoked within the limit of 296,575,500 won, which is the plaintiff's preserved claim, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 296,575,500 won with compensation for value and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as provided by the Civil Act from the day following the day this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of complete payment

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant shall be accepted on the ground of the reasons.