B. The defendant is a corporation BBB.

1) With respect to the 1. Real Estate listed in the Attachment List (1) as indicated in the Attachment List (1), procedures for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 31436 of the receipt of No. 31436, Oct. 11, 2012;

2) With respect to the 2. Real Estate listed in the Appendix 1(1), procedures for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed as No. 11364 on April 24, 2013, HH District Court JJ branch, etc., with respect to the 2. Real Estate:

3) The procedures for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed as No. 14885 on May 27, 2013, HH District Court JJ branch with respect to the 3. Real Estate listed in the Attachment List (1) 3.

4) The procedures for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 21946 of the receipt of December 18, 2012, with respect to the 1. Real Estate listed in the Attachment List (2) 1.

5) The procedures for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 21947 of the receipt on December 18, 2012 with respect to the 2. Real Estate listed in the Attachment List (2) :

6) The registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on April 25, 2013 under the receipt No. 9847 shall be implemented with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (3).

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. BB purchased real estate with profitability and had mainly engaged in real estate business in the form of earning profit from the sale of divided ownership shares by way of acquiring such real estate. From October 11, 2012 to May 27, 201C, each of the following real estate or its shares was sold to the Defendant, and closed on May 31, 201C.

B. After the closure of the BB BB, the above company’s tax investigation revealed omission of sales, underreporting of inventory assets, etc., and made a correction notice of the corporate tax amount to KRW 00,000,000 as follows. The above company is delinquent in the corresponding amount.

C. However, the defendant is the wife of AD, the representative of BBB.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including provisional number), and the purpose of the whole pleading

2. Whether the fraudulent act is constituted;

A. The assertion

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the sales contract between BB and the Defendant constitutes a gift and constitutes a fraudulent act conducted to avoid the payment of delinquent corporate tax. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted to the effect that, at the time of purchasing each real estate from BBB, the active property of BBB was in excess of the negative property at the time of purchasing each real estate from BBB, it is not constituted a fraudulent act, and that the Defendant is a bona fide beneficiary who trusted the BBBBB, which was paying taxes in good faith at the time of purchasing each real estate, and thus, the Defendant cannot seek the revocation of each sales contract against the Defendant.

B. Determination on insolvent requirements

Where a debtor continuously disposes of several properties, in principle, it is necessary to determine whether each act causes insolvency. However, in cases where there are special circumstances to see the series of acts as a single act, it shall be determined whether the overall act is harmful as a whole. Whether there are special circumstances should be determined by comprehensively taking into account whether the other party to the disposition is identical, whether each disposition is close to time, whether the other party and the debtor are specially related, and whether the motive or opportunity for each disposition is identical (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da34740, Mar. 27, 2014).

According to the facts of recognition, etc., the sales contract between the defendant and his husband of BB, which is the representative director, was made for a period of not less than six months prior to the closure of the business, and the object of the transaction is also a small-scale real estate remaining after selling divided real estate in one unit or several neighboring real estate in the last place. In this regard, the object of taxation should be reduced by reducing sales cost or increasing sales cost in order to reduce the corporate tax burden. If it is reported that the plaintiff sold the real estate purchased by the plaintiff to the defendant, the profit of BBBB, which would increase the corporate tax burden. Accordingly, it is sufficient to set the sales price of the defendant at least similar to the purchase price of the plaintiff, and even though the defendant did not submit any material proving the current status of payment of the sales price, it can be seen that the defendant's sales contract of this case is a special act.

According to the above evidence, it can be seen that the BBB disposes of the real estate it purchased at least before the date of the conclusion of the last sales contract, and if it is not related to the delinquent tax amount of the said company corresponding to the small property, the active property is very small, and thus, it can be recognized that the BB's insolvency requirement is recognized.

C. Whether the defendant's good faith is recognized

Since the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary is liable to prove his/her good faith in order to be exempted from his/her responsibility. In such cases, the issue of good faith shall be determined reasonably in light of logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary; (b) the details and motive leading up to the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary; (c) whether there are no special circumstances to doubt that the terms and conditions of the act of disposal are normal transaction; and (d) whether there are objective and objective documents supporting the act of disposal; and (b) circumstances after the act of disposal. Furthermore, to recognize that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, there is no sufficient evidence to readily conclude that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act based on the debtor's unilateral statement or a statement that is just a third party's trends (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da206986, Nov. 28, 2013).

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, since the sales contract of the defendant and the BBB constitutes a fraudulent act, it is necessary to cancel this and cancel each registration of ownership transfer of the defendant due to restitution.

3. Conclusion

If so, we decide to accept the plaintiff's claim and decide as per Disposition.