2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 75 million 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 plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The contract for each gift in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2 and 2 entered into between the defendant and BB shall be revoked, and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 184,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

A. Tax claims against the Plaintiff BB

The plaintiff against BB: 1, 2008 to 2010, 208 to 2008 to 2008.

In 2012, each of the comprehensive income tax was imposed and notified, and as of October 2014, BB’s arrears at the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit are KRW 2,625,310,100 as listed below.

(b) Payment of money;

(1) 피고는 2012. 1. 13. CCC으로부터 김해시 대동면 DDD 92-163 대지 및 그지상 건물(이하 '이 사건 제1 부동산'이라고 한다)을 600,000,000원에 매수하였는데, 피고의 남편인 BBB는 같은 날 본인 명의 EEE은행 계좌에서 위 매매계약의 계약금100,000,000원 중 65,000,000원 �EEE은행(계좌번호 : 9010134901)에서 50,000,000원, EEE은행(계좌번호 : 90117003636)에서 15,000,000원 p을, 2012. 2. 1. 본인 명의의 EEE은행계좌(계좌번호 : 90117003636)에서 잔금 500,000,000원 중 100,000,000원을 CCC의 EEE은행 계좌(계좌번호 : 81712356105194)로 각 이체하였다(이하 위 각 금원 이체를 통틀어 '이 사건 제1 금원 지급행위'라고 한다).

(2) BB transferred KRW 19,000,000 to the Defendant’s EE Bank Account (Account Number: 901340901) in the name of the EE Bank Account on March 19, 2012 (hereinafter “instant payment act”).

(3) BB with respect to the FFF 98 m200 m2 in Pyeongtaek-si, Chungcheongnam-do, one owned by the principal, JJ in respect of the FF 995 m2.

In addition, the registration of the Suwon District Court’s Eunpyeong Housing Site Board and the maximum amount of debt on March 23, 2012, No. 14594, the receipt of the said maximum amount

120,000,000 won was respectively set up a collateral security, and on June 27, 2012, the amount of KRW 75,000,000 was transferred from the Defendant’s EE Bank Account (Account Number: 8310352080271) to the Defendant’s EE Bank Account (Account Number: 902296056).

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap's 1 through 6, Eul's 4 (including branch numbers, if any), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Formation of preserved claims

The fact that the Plaintiff has a taxation claim of KRW 2,625,310,100 against BB is earlier.

As seen above.

(b) whether the debt exceeds BB;

Evidence adopted earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 8 and 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

Comprehensively taking account of the foregoing, BB’s property status at the time of the instant payment of KRW 1, 2, and 3 is as follows. According to the foregoing, BB was absent from the status of excess of liability at the time of the instant payment of KRW 1, 2, and 3.

C. Whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act

(1) Relevant legal principles

Where a debtor donated his/her property to another person under excess of debts, special circumstances

Unless this act is seen as a fraudulent act. However, if a creditor seeking revocation of a fraudulent act asserts that an act of payment of the money to a beneficiary is a gift, it shall be proved that the act of payment of the money constitutes a gift. The burden of proof is on the part of asserting a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da28686, May 31, 2007). In this case, in order for the act of payment of the money to constitute a gift, it shall be interpreted that there is an agreement between the debtor and the beneficiary as to the transfer of the money to the beneficiary ultimately without compensation between the debtor and the beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). In light of the above legal principles, it shall be viewed that the act of payment of the money constitutes a gift.

(2) Whether the act of paying the first money of this case constitutes a gift

Serial Transfer Account of the date of payment

1. 40,000,000 EE Bank (90170036) on January 3, 2012

2. 30,000,000 on January 3, 2012

3. 10,000,000 on January 3, 2012

4. 10,000,000

5 January 4, 2012 10,000,000

Total 100,000,000

(A) The fact that the Defendant purchased the instant real estate No. 1 from CCC on January 13, 2012; and

BB, other than high-priced, to the said CCC as the purchase price of the instant real estate on January 13, 2012

The payment of KRW 65,00,000, and KRW 100,000 on February 1, 2012 is as seen earlier.

(B) On the other hand, on the other hand, evidence Nos. 4, and Nos. 2 through 5 (a)

According to each entry, each of the witness BB's testimony, the following facts can be recognized.

(1) Three lots and each building on three lots and the ground in Busan Gangseo-gu, Busan 656-4 Miscellaneous land, each of which is 590 square meters.

(hereinafter referred to as "second real estate of this case") the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant was completed on July 22, 2004 by the Busan District Court Gangseo-gu registry office of the Busan District Court (hereinafter referred to as "the second real estate of this case").

(2) On January 3, 2012, the Defendant: (a) the period of lease to HH from January 10, 2012 to January 10, 2014

up to, monthly rent of KRW 6,00,000, and KRW 100,000,000 for lease deposit of KRW 100,000,00 for lease deposit of KRW 100,00 for lease deposit of KRW 100,00 for lease deposit was transferred to the EE Bank account (Account Number: 90170,03636) of BB as listed below.

③ On January 31, 2012, BB entered into a sales contract for the instant Real Estate No. 2 on behalf of the Defendant with the said HH on behalf of the Defendant, KRW 100,000,000 out of the down payment of KRW 200,000,000,000, which was paid as the lease deposit as described in the foregoing (i) was paid in lieu of the deposit, and the remainder of KRW 100,000,000 was paid at the time of the contract. The remainder of KRW 100,000 was transferred to the EE Bank account (Account Number: 901700,636) of BB as listed in the following table.

(C) Comprehensively taking account of the overall arguments in the above facts of recognition, the following circumstances may lead to the occurrence of a cause or injury.

Article 830 (1) of the Civil Code provides that "The property acquired by one side in his name during marriage shall be the unique property." Since the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant has been completed with respect to the second real estate of this case, the second real estate of this case shall be presumed to be the defendant's unique property, and unless there are circumstances to reverse the above presumption, the second real estate of this case shall be presumed to be the defendant's unique property and the second real estate of this case shall be deemed to be owned by the defendant.

(B) (B) on behalf of the Defendant, HH entered into a lease and sales contract on behalf of the Defendant, as described in paragraph (3), and the lease deposit and sales amount are deemed to have been paid in the name of the principal.

BB is the defendant's money that was managed in the same manner as the above Sub-Section B.

It seems that CCC was paid as the purchase price of real estate.

(D) In light of the above facts and overall circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the act of paying the instant No. 1 to the Defendant was a donation to the Defendant solely based on the facts acknowledged earlier, and recognition is otherwise.

there is no evidence to prove that there is no evidence.

(E) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s act of paying the instant No. 1 was a donation to the Defendant is without merit.

(3) Whether the act of paying the second money of this case constitutes a gift

(A) BB transferred KRW 19,000,000 to the Defendant’s EE Bank Account on March 19, 2012

The room is as seen earlier.

(B) However, on the other hand, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 6, 7

According to each description of the witness BB and some testimony of the witness BB, the following facts may be recognized:

① BB and III, a child of the Defendant, are studying in the United Kingdom, and the Defendant was primarily responsible for remitting the amount of studying to III.

② On January 3, 2012, the Defendant transferred 1,100 British dollars to III for study funds, 1,00 US dollars 30 on January 30, 2012, 1,00 US dollars 1,000 on February 27, 2012, and 11,80 US dollars 19 March 19, 2012.

③ When the Defendant converted the English currency 11,800, which was remitted to III on March 19, 2012, into the exchange rate at the time, 21,231,858 won (i.e., 11,800 x 11,80 won).

(C) According to the above facts, the following circumstances can be inferred.

BB did not directly transfer the study funds to III because it was the Defendant, and it seems that on March 19, 2012, the Defendant transferred KRW 19,00,000 to the EE Bank account.

(C) The defendant shall pay 19,00,000,000 won by deposit from BB to Kim

It seems that the UK has remitted 11,800 tons of the amount of study funds to the public.

(D) In light of the above facts and overall circumstances, it is not sufficient to recognize that the act of paying the instant No. 2 to the Defendant was a donation to the Defendant solely based on the facts acknowledged earlier, and there is other recognition.

there is no evidence to prove that there is no evidence.

(E) Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the act of paying the instant No. 2 was a donation to the Defendant

shall not be justified.

(4) Whether the act of paying the third money of this case constitutes a gift

(A) BB A. BB each of the instant collateral security rights (a total of KRW 190,000,000,000 to the J

(1) On June 27, 2012, the fact that KK transferred KRW 75,00,000 from the Defendant’s EE Bank account, the spouse of the JJ, to the Defendant’s EE Bank account is as seen earlier. In addition to the evidence adopted prior to the above fact of recognition and the overall purport of the pleadings, BB did not take the procedure of borrowing KRW 75,00,000 from the JJ and making a second payment to the Defendant, and without further proceeding to pay the Defendant the amount immediately from the JJ, it is reasonable to deem that BB made a donation to the Defendant of KRW 75,00,000,000, which was borrowed from the JJ by means of payment of the amount immediately from the Defendant. Accordingly, the witness’s testimony that is contrary to this is not believed, and there is no other counter-proof.

Since it is BBB that set up a mortgage as a debtor to JJ, the above 75,000,000 won shall be the money that BB borrowed from J, and the J appears to have remitted the above money to the defendant's account at the request of BB.

(B) The defendant does not have a special credit and debt relationship with BB, as above, 75,00,000

Considering the fact that the defendant and the BB were paid in their own account and the fact that the defendant and the BB are legal couple, the reasons and purpose of the BB paid the above money to the defendant are not arbitable.

The defendant, on June 10, 2015, stated that "BB-owned real estate was provided as security and borrowed KRW 75,000,000 from JJ", and prepared as of June 17, 2015.

In the written statement, the statement of '75,000,000 won was borrowed from BB, which is not JJ,' and there is no consistency in the defendant's assertion. The witness B testified that 'B borrowed money from JJ and paid 75,00,000 won to the defendant with living expenses and studying expenses in III' (in the instant court, the witness B testified that 'B borrowed money from JJ and paid 'the above 75,00,000 won to the defendant's defendant's living expenses, which is not only the defendant's June 10, 2015 but also the defendant's statement on June 17, 2015 is inconsistent).

In the event that the defendant borrowed the above money from JJ or BB, there is a financial data that regularly paid interest, but it cannot be found that the defendant received the above money from BB for living expenses and study expenses, there is a material that the defendant remitted the money to the money for his/her daily living expenses or for his/her study expenses, and there is no material that can be found.

75,000,000 won is excessive to be considered as living expenses or study funds.

(B) BB’s donation of KRW 75,000,000 to the Defendant by the Defendant on June 27, 2012

As seen earlier, the fact that BB had been born, and the gift of money to the Defendant by the Defendant was reduced by creditors’ joint security, and that BB had known that it would prejudice creditors, including the Plaintiff, by the above donation, in light of the financial status of BB at the time, the time when the gift was made, the time when the gift was made, and the relationship between BB and the Defendant, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, a donation contract of KRW 75,000,000 entered into on June 27, 2012 between BB and the Defendant shall be subject to death.

Since it constitutes a harmful act, the defendant, who is the beneficiary, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 75,00,000 won and damages for delay calculated by applying the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day following the day when this judgment is finalized to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.