B. The defendant shall execute the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on December 11, 2006 by the 22020 registry office of the Jeonju District Court with respect to the above real estate, with respect to the registration of the transfer of ownership.

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

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

2. Judgment on deemed confession (Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act).

Grounds of Claim

1. As to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s preserved claim (tax claim) against Nonparty 1 Jeong-hee

(a) Details of national taxes imposed and delinquent national taxes;

On December 2, 2006, Non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "debtor") entered into a real estate sales contract to sell and purchase the "land located at 000-3, 000-6, 000, and 000 of the same Ri (hereinafter referred to as "real estate subject to taxation"); and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 28, 2006 with the Jeonju District Court Branch Office No. 00000 and 0000 on December 28, 2006 (refer to the evidence No. 1, No. 1, and evidence No. 4, No. 1, No. 1, No. 1, No. 4, No. 1, No. 1, No. 20007)" (refer to the evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 2005, No. 1, No. 306410, Apr. 1, 2005).

(See Evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and No. 1 to 3)

(b) Disposing of the debtor's property;

On the other hand, on December 6, 2006, after the debtor entered into a sales contract for "real estate subject to taxation" on December 6, 2006, the debtor entered into a donation contract on December 6, 2006 (hereinafter "real estate of this case"), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 11, 2006 by the receipt registration office of Jeonju District Court 000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 11, 2006 with respect to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○0-1 forest land 1,246 square meters (hereinafter "○○○○○-1 land") on the 00-1,000 square meters for the 0-1,000 square meters for the 0-1,000 square meters for the 1/2,000 shares for the 1/2,000 shares for the 06-2,000 square meters for the previous 20-4,200.

(see Evidence A 2-1 to 3)

(c) Date for establishing the taxation rights;

On the other hand, a taxation claim is legally established when the taxation requirements under the tax law are met. In the case of the above delinquent national tax, the income tax to be paid by preliminary return as transfer income tax is stipulated that the tax liability is established on the last day of the month in which the amount which serves as the tax base under Article 21 (2) 2 of the Framework Act

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, when determining whether the Plaintiff’s tax claim against the obligor as of December 6, 2006, which was the debtor’s fraudulent act on the real estate of this case, was established, the date when the Plaintiff’s tax liability for delinquent national taxes, which is the Plaintiff’s tax claim, was established on December 31, 2006, and on December 6, 2006, when the obligor entered into a donation contract with the Defendant Y, the liability to pay delinquent national taxes was not yet established, but on December 2, 2006, after the purchase and sale contract was entered into on December 2, 2006, the “real estate subject to taxation, which is the cause of taxation of delinquent national taxes,” and there was a high probability that the basic legal relationship in which delinquent national taxes were already established in the near future, and the claim has been established in reality (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da27382, Nov. 28, 195; Supreme Court Decision 2005Da37382, Mar. 37, 2001).

2. As to the debtor's fraudulent act and insolvency

The debtor could expect that the national tax of the large amount of the above mentioned above will be notified, and on December 6, 2006, donated '○○○ 000-2 land' and '○○ ○○○ land' as well as 'the real estate in this case', reduced the liability property that is the security for the tax claims, and as a result, the debtor was placed in an insolvent state, resulting in a situation in which the plaintiff could not obtain the satisfaction of the tax claims through the debtor's property.

3. As to the deceased's will

(a) The debtor's intention to cause harm;

The debtor, on December 2, 2006, entered into a sales contract for the "real estate subject to taxation" on December 2, 2006 and came to know on December 6, 2006 that the amount of national tax would be imposed on him, which was later. In addition, the debtor, including the real estate in this case, donated his whole property to the defendant, etc., who is a kind of child, causing the state of insolvency. It is clear that the debtor's intention to cause the death of the debtor in arrears is.

B. The defendant's bad faith

In addition, the defendant Jeong-tae was aware that as the debtor's donation of "real estate of this case", the debtor's property of liability is reduced and the total creditor is prevented. (See the evidence No. 4-1 to No. 2 of this case)

C. Sub-decision

In this regard, the intention of the debtor's will is clear, and the defendant also knew that he has conspired with the debtor or at least would not reduce the debtor's assets and satisfy all creditors due to the debtor's legal act, so the defendant cannot be considered as a bona fide acquirer.

4. As to the ground for revocation of the fraudulent act

As above, the plaintiff became aware of the fact that the debtor donated the real estate of this case with the intention of doing harm and reduced the debtor's responsible property and caused the debtor to be in excess of his/her liability.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, in light of the above facts, the gift contract between the debtor and the defendant YO on the real estate of this case, which is executed between the debtor and the defendant YO, shall not be revoked because it was concluded with the knowledge that it would prejudice the plaintiff, who is the creditor, in order to be exempted from the disposition of default on national taxes imposed by the head of Seo-gu Daejeon District Tax Office under the jurisdiction of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to file an objection pursuant to Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act, and the defendant YO has the obligation to implement the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the name of the defendant YO, which was completed with respect to the real estate of this case as its restitution.