2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 9-1, 11-1, and the fact inquiry results with respect to the court of first instance and the court of second instance, and the whole purport of pleadings.

A. As a result of the on-site verification of value-added tax conducted on the stronger between December 4, 2006 and December 8, 2006, the director of the Seocheon District Tax Office under the Plaintiff-based tax office found the fact that ○○ was omitted from cash revenue and underreporting the value-added tax.

B. Accordingly, the director of the Seocheon District Tax Office decided to revise the value-added tax on the lectures, and issued a notice of payment of value-added tax on March 12, 2007 to Gangwon on December 26, 2006 on March 12, 2007 after the notice of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 206,865,692 on December 26, 2006. However, the stronger did not pay value-added tax of KRW 98,271,765 on February 2005 and value-added tax of KRW 110,641,185 on January 206 (hereinafter “instant tax claim”).

C. On the other hand, the stronger completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as the "transfer registration of ownership of this case") to the defendant, who is the father of the Incheon District Court, as the mother of the Gyeyang-gu, the father of the attached list (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case"), based on the sale on November 28 of the same year (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case") as the receipt No. 81435 of Dec. 22, 2006.

D. At the time, the Plaintiff had no particular property except for the instant real estate, the market price of which is approximately KRW 71,900,000, but did not exceed the positive property, such as the instant tax liability against the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

(a) Right to be preserved;

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle, it is highly probable that at the time of such fraudulent act the legal relationship has already existed, and that the claim is to be established in the near future, and in the near future, where a claim has been realized and its probability has been realized in the near future, such claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation. Here, “the legal relationship forming the basis for the establishment of a claim” is not limited to the legal relationship under an agreement between the parties, but shall be deemed to include the quasi-legal relationship or factual relations, etc.

위 인정사실에 의하면, 서인천세무서장이 2006.12.4.부터 같은 달 8.까지 사이의 세무조사를 통하여 강○자가 2005.7.1.부터 2006.6.30.까지 사이에 부가가치세를 과소신고한 사실을 발견한 다음, 2006.12.26. 과세 예고통지를 겇 2007.3.12.부가가치세를 납부를 고지하였음을 인정할 수 있는바, 이에 비추어 보면 강○자의 부가가치세액 과소신고로 인하여 2005년 및 2006년 당시 이미 이 사건 조세채권 발생의 기초적 법률관계가 성립하였다고 할 것이고, 실제 세무조사 결과 밝혀진 위 과소신고소액에 따라 경정절차 등의 일련의 절차를 거쳐 이 사건 조세채권이 성립된 점에 비추어 가까운 장래에 위 법률관계에 터잡아 이 사건 조세채권이 성립되리라는 점에 대한 고도의 개연성이 있었을 뿐 아니라 실제로 가까운 장래에 그 개연성이 현실화되어 이 사건 조세채권이 성립하였으므로, 원고의 강○자에 대한 이 사건 조세채권은 채권자취소권의 피보전채권이 될 수 있다고 봄이 상당하다.

(b) Fraudulent act;

It is reasonable to view that the act of the stronger, who is liable for the same tax claim against the plaintiff, in excess of the debt, converted the real estate of this case, which is one of his sole property, to the defendant for consumption, constitutes a fraudulent act with the well-known knowledge that it would prejudice the plaintiff, who is the creditor, barring any special circumstances. As long as the intention of harm by the stronger, who is the debtor, is recognized, the defendant

C. Judgment on the defendant's argument

이에 대하여 피고는, 신용불량자인 아들 부부(○덕, 강○화)에게 거주할 주택을 마련해 주기 위하여 이 사건 부동산을 구매하게 된 것으로서, 위 부동산의 매매대금의 지급에 갈음하여 강○자가 피고에 대하여 부담하고 있던 10,000,0000원의 차용금 채무를 면제하고, 강○자가 이 사건 부동산을 담보로 주식회사 우리은행으로부터 대출받은 금 61,000,000원의 채무 중 금 11,000,000원은 피고가 이를 대신 변제하고 나머지 채무 50,000,000원은 이를 인수하였는바, 당시 이 사건 부동산의 시가는 위 근저당권의 피담보채무인 61,000,000원에도 미치지 못하였으므로, 위 부동산에 관한 매매곙갸은 사해행위에 해당하지 않는다는 취지로 주장한다.

According to each of the evidence evidence Nos. 4, 1, 2, and 1, 2, the court below determined that the Gangnam took over KRW 61,00,000 from our bank around June 3, 2005, the remainder of the secured debt of the above secured debt of the above secured debt as KRW 10,000,000 among the secured debt of the above secured debt of the above secured debt, and then the defendant acquired KRW 50,000,000 from the above secured debt of the above secured debt around May 8, 2005.

However, the above facts and evidence No. 6-1, Gap evidence No. 9-2, Eul evidence No. 11-3, Gap evidence No. 13, Eul evidence No. 12, and Eul evidence No. 12 can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of pleadings. In other words, the market price of the real estate of this case at the time of the conclusion of the contract of this case is about 71,90,000 won and the market price of the above real estate continuously increased thereafter. The defendant did not present objective materials as to the fact that the defendant had a close-friendly relationship with the stronger as ○○, a mother of the stronger, and that there was a debt of KRW 10,00,000 to the stronger out of the details of the purchase price alleged by the defendant, and it is difficult to view the above money as the defendant's move of the above real estate after the completion of the contract of this case's transfer registration for 10,000 won after the expiration of 70 months.

In addition, it is difficult to believe that the entry of the evidence No. 14, which seems consistent with the defendant's above argument, is difficult to believe it as it is, and the entry of the evidence No. 4, No. 6, and No. 11, does not constitute a fraudulent act by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the sales contract of this case concluded between the defendant and the assistant shall be revoked as a private act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case as the restoration to its original state.

3. Conclusion

그렇다면 원고의 이 사건 청구는 이유 있어 이를 인용할 것인바, 제1심 판결은 이와 결론을 같이하여 정당하므로 피고의 항소는 이유 없어 이를 기각하기로 ㅎ여, 주문과 같이 판결한다.