2. The defendant will implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate stated in the attached list to ○○ by reason of restitution due to the revocation of fraudulent act.

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

A. On November 1, 1997, ○○○○○-dong 00, 1997, running a high-water wholesale business at ○○○-dong 00, and closed the business on June 22, 2007.

B. On August 9, 2006, ○○ entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant, who is an infant as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on his own ownership on August 9, 2006, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name, which was based on donation No. 25655 on August 21, 2006.

C. After the Defendant donated the instant real estate on October 16, 2006, ○ Agricultural Cooperative established the right to collateral security with the maximum debt amount of 33 million won on the instant real estate.

D. At the time of the instant gift act, ○○○○○ also owned the instant real estate and ○○○○○○○○○○○-gun, 000 shares (1/80) of 00 of 00 of 00 of 00 of 00 of 3 lots of ground condominiums (1/80) on October 18, 2006, the market price of the instant real estate was 47,904,000 won according to the simplified appraisal list at the time of October 18, 2006. The market price of the instant condominium was 730,000 won (per 34.82 square meters of 34.82 square meters of 1/800,000).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2-4, Gap evidence 16, Gap evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 17-1-4, Eul evidence 1, and fact-finding with respect to ○○ Agricultural Cooperative, the purport of the whole pleadings, as a result of this court's fact-finding with respect to ○○ Agricultural Cooperative

2. Judgment on the assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The act of ○○ who donated the instant real estate to the Defendant under the status of excess of debts is a fraudulent act committed for the purpose of undermining the Plaintiff, a tax claim, and thus must be revoked.

B. Defendant’s assertion

(1) The Plaintiff’s national tax claim (hereinafter “instant national tax claim”) is the value-added tax or global income tax that was additionally notified of correction for each taxable period between 2001 and 2006 on ○○○ from 2006, and it cannot be deemed that there was a high probability that the claim was established when the obligor Cho○ performed the instant gift act around August 2006.

(2) It is merely 12,083,230 won of the corrected tax amount notified to Cho○○ prior to the act of donation. Whether the act of donation of this case constitutes a fraudulent act should be determined on the basis of KRW 12,083,230, which is the tax amount corrected at the time of the act of donation. At the time of the act of donation of this case, ○○ at the time of the act of donation of this case, other than the real estate of this case, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 00,000, KRW 1st truck,44 million, KRW 130,000, KRW 1300, KRW 6 million,000 of the corrected tax amount.

(3) At the time of closing ○○○○’s business, he paid in good faith the prepayment, occasional, regular, and corrected portion of the value-added tax imposed and collected by the time of closing his business, and the portion of the prepayment, occasional, regular, and corrected portion of the global income tax, as well as the portion of the global income tax, which was notified of the correction, with respect to the global income tax. Since ○○ was notified after August 2006 that ○○ performed a gift act, ○○ could not have known that ○○ had known that the national tax claim of this case occurred, and it would have been notified of the correction. The additional amount of national tax claims that the Plaintiff adjusted by ○○○ Accounting Office had reported the reduction of value-added tax by unfairly deducting the input tax amount without prior consultation with ○○○○. Therefore, ○○ had no intention to do so.

C. Determination

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) From the first taxable period of 2002 to the second taxable period of 2005, when reporting and paying value-added tax for the second taxable period of 2005, ○○○ offered the data on the personal information and sales of the sales office for each taxable period of 2005, personal information of the purchasing transaction office and the purchase amount, and personal information of the waste resources purchasing office to the ○○○○ Office operated by ○○○○○○ Office. The ○○ Office, based on the pertinent data, provided the amount of value-added tax payable after deducting the general input tax amount and the waste resources purchase tax amount from the output tax amount of value-added tax. The ○○○ filed a return on the said amount of value-added tax payable with the Plaintiff’

(B) Around December 9, 2005, ○○○ Tax Office examined the details of the waste resources purchase deduction for the waste resources of ○○○○, on the grounds of suspicion that ○○○ had illegally deducted the input tax amount, and then notified the general business operators, ex officio persons, emigrants, etc. of the results of the investigation to correct the illegally deducted input tax amount after deducting the input tax amount. < Amended by Act No. 7869, Dec. 9, 2005>

(C) From January 2006 to July 2007, 2007, the head of ○○○○ Tax Office continued to verify whether it was actually a transaction, and had continued to notify ○○○ of the rectification of value-added tax with regard to the wrongful deduction of the amount of waste resources purchased during recycling. The amount of the corrected tax notified to ○○○ prior to the instant gift act is KRW 4,951,380, value-added tax for the first term portion of 2002, KRW 4,710,00, KRW 2,421,850, and KRW 12,083,230 for the second term portion of 202, KRW 2,421,850 for the first term portion of 203, and KRW 2,083,230 for the first term portion of 200.

(D) From the first taxable period in 2002 to the second taxable period in 2005, ○○ continued to omit value-added tax and comprehensive income tax during the taxable period in 2005, and the omission tax amount reaches KRW 382,197,050.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 1-8-1, Gap evidence 7-8-1-6, Gap evidence 9-1-8, Gap evidence 10-8, Gap evidence 11-8, Gap evidence 12-1-8, Gap evidence 13-1-6, Gap evidence 14, Gap evidence 15-1-7, Gap evidence 18-1-7, Eul evidence 19-1-6, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

[Evidence of Evidence] 2 No. 3

(2) First of all, it is necessary to examine whether there was a high probability of the occurrence of a claim, which can be protected by the creditor’s right of revocation, in principle, prior to the occurrence of a fraudulent act. However, there was a high probability that the legal relationship, which is the basis of the establishment of a claim at the time of the fraudulent act, has already occurred in the near future, and where a claim has been established as a result of its de facto realization in the near future, the claim may also be preserved for the obligee’s right of revocation. According to the above facts, the illegal deduction for waste resources purchased on the ground of the establishment of a national tax claim in this case was prior to the donation act in this case, and some value-added tax was corrected before the donation act in this case on the ground of the actual deduction for input tax amount. In order to verify whether to deduct an input tax amount, it is probable that a long-term investigation was conducted over a large number of customers and a long-term payment notice was made at the time of the donation act in this case, and that there was a high probability that the remaining national tax claim in this case was established in the next 30830.

In addition, the issue of whether the donation of this case constitutes a fraudulent act ought to be determined on the basis of KRW 12,083,230, which is the tax amount corrected and notified at the time of the donation act. According to the above determination, the obligor’s small property includes not only the obligee’s claims already established at the time of the donation act but also the obligee’s claims for preservation of obligee’s rights at the time of the donation act. According to the above recognition, even if the Defendant’s assertion that the gift of this case was active property at the time of the donation act, it is difficult to view that the obligor had been in excess of its obligation since it was considerably short of KRW 382,197,050, which is a small property, and even if the obligor’s active property at the time of the donation act exceeds the obligee’s total amount of claims, it is difficult to view that the obligor’s claim for reimbursement of value-added tax can not be reasonably acknowledged because it did not have any other special reason to view that the obligee’s claim for reimbursement of the above property cannot be seen as property.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the act of donation of this case is already conducted with an intention to harm the plaintiff, and thus, it should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act. After the act of donation of this case, the real estate of this case was established after the act of donation of this case, and cannot oppose ○○ Agricultural Cooperative, a bona fide purchaser, ○○. In addition, since it cannot be expected that the consent of the mortgagee on the registration of cancellation of the transfer of ownership under the name of the defendant was obtained, the obligee may seek restitution in the way of the transfer of ownership registration through the way of restitution, such as cancellation of ownership transfer registration and its purpose, and thus, the defendant is obliged to perform the procedure of transfer registration

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.