2. The Defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed in accordance with Law No. 81435, Dec. 22, 2006, with respect to the above real estate to ○○○○.

3. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A. From December 4, 2006 to the 8th day of the same month, the head of ○○○ Tax Office, under the Plaintiff’s control, found the fact of underreporting the value-added tax by omitting cash revenue as a result of conducting on-the-spot verification investigation of the value-added tax.

B. Accordingly, on December 26, 2006, the head of the ○○○○ Tax Office decided to revise the value-added tax and notified the payment of the value-added tax on March 12, 2007 on March 12, 2007 after prior notice of taxation of KRW 206,865,692. However, on February 2, 2005 and January 117, 2006, KRW 104,757,690 and KRW 480 are delinquent in the value-added tax.

C. The ○○○○ completed the registration of ownership transfer due to sale on November 28, 2006, with the title registration office 81435 received on December 22, 2006, ○○ District Court ○○○○○○○○○○○ registry office, as the mother of the father ○○○○○ with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet in the separate sheet, which is the only property value of KRW 120 million.

[Ground of recognition] 1 to 9 evidence No. 1 (including each number), the fact-finding results of this court's ○○○ Tax Office's fact-finding results, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Establishment of fraudulent act

According to the above facts, through a tax investigation between December 4, 2006 and June 30, 2006, the head of ○○○○ Tax Office found the under-reported of value-added tax for the period from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006, and notified the payment of value-added tax on March 12, 2007 through the prior notice of taxation on December 26, 2006. Thus, due to the under-reported value-added tax return of ○○○○ Tax Office, the basic legal relationship of the occurrence of the instant tax claim was established in the year 2005 and 6 years. In light of the fact that the instant tax claim was established through a series of procedures, such as correction procedure, etc., based on the under-reported return revealed as a result of the actual tax investigation, it was highly probable that the instant tax claim was established in the near future, as well as the fact that it was actual, and the instant tax claim was established in the near future.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

The defendant asserted that the sale and purchase contract on the real estate of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act since the price of the real estate of this case at the time of the sale and purchase contract of this case does not reach 61 million won, since the Gangwon ○○ purchased the real estate of this case under the condition that he repaid 10 million won out of 61 million won loaned from ○○ bank as collateral and takes over the remaining debts of 50 million won. Since the market price of the real estate of this case at the time of the sale and purchase contract of this case does not reach 61 million won as collateral, the real estate of this case did not constitute a fraudulent act. However, as seen above, the defendant is the mother of ○○○, who is the father of ○○○, who is the father of ○○○, and the defendant lent the above debts of 10 million won from ○○, who is the defendant's father of ○○, who is the defendant, and there is no other objective evidence to acknowledge that the defendant had resided in this case's real estate.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the sales contract of this case between ○○ and the Defendant should be revoked as a fraudulent act. Since the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case to the Plaintiff due to restitution, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is justified.