2. The Defendant sold the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to Nonparty B, and implemented the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on June 2, 201 by the Incheon District Court No. 52085, Jun. 2, 2011.

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

Attached Form 2 is as follows.

2. Applicable provisions;

Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment by deemed as Confession)

Change in Claim Grounds

1. Relationship between the parties;

2. Formation of secured claims;

(a) Circumstances of taxation;

On March 25, 2011 under Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the director of the Namcheon District Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control of Nonparty B, the major shareholder of HH (100%) of Nonparty H, the non-party 2, who was the non-party 2, designated and notified the non-party 2 as the secondary taxpayer on August 25, 201, as shown in Appendix 2 attached hereto, on March 25, 2011. However, the arrears due to the non-party H’s non-party 2’s failure to pay it by the day of the filing of the lawsuit shall have become 00 won (the specific contents are as follows: 1 to 14 - 1 to 3 - 1 to 3 - 14 each copy of the written resolution, and 1 copy each of the notice of payment).

B. Establishment of preserved claims

Tax claims are legally established when the taxation requirements prescribed by tax law are met, and in the case of corporate tax and value-added tax pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the amount of income or amount of income is established when the taxable period expires. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s tax claim against Nonparty BB was established before June 2, 2011, which is a fraudulent act.

3. Occurrence of fraudulent act;

The non-party BB made ownership II on June 2, 201 under the receipt of the Incheon District Court No. 52085 on June 2, 2011 by reason of the sale of real estate leapment in the attached list 1 to the defendant Won-A. (Evidence A 4 - a certified copy of the real estate register)

4. Excess of debts;

At the time of the date of the instant fraudulent act, Nonparty BB’s active property is KRW 000 (No. 3 - The transaction value on the register of real estate) as stated in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “the instant real property”). The small property was in excess of the debt amount of KRW 000 and KRW 000,000, total amount of the national tax preserved claim amount. (No. 5 - the evidence No. 5 - the transfer of ownership due to the purchase and sale of the remaining property - Nonparty BB’s transfer to the Defendant due to the cause of the purchase and sale of the property by the obligor’s reduction of the debtor’s liability property, thereby preventing the Plaintiff’s claim, which is the tax claim.

5.Proceedings of harm.

Nonparty B, as the major shareholder of Nonparty H H Co., Ltd. (100%), the director of the tax office in Busan Nam-do transferred ownership due to the designation of the secondary tax obligor and the disposition of this case (payment notice) by Nonparty H’s delinquency in national tax payment of HH Co., Ltd., and it was anticipated that the real estate of this case was transferred to the Defendant, which was the omission of the originalGG, due to the sale of the real estate of this case. Such act was conducted to avoid the disposition of arrears by the Plaintiff, as a matter of course, to the effect that it would prejudice

6. Bad faith of the defendant

The defendant would have been aware of the fact that the act of transfer of ownership was a fraudulent act at the time of the sales contract of the real estate of this case and the intention of Nonparty BB's letter of intent at the time of the sales contract of the real estate of this case due to the omission of Nonparty BB.

7. Acknowledgement of a fraudulent act;

The fact that the real estate in this case was registered under the name of the defendant was known only after the plaintiff collected a copy of the real estate register on May 201 to review the property status of the non-party BB for the settlement of national taxes in arrears.

8. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the sales contract for the real estate in this case between BB and the defendant was concluded with the knowledge that the tax payer would be exempted from the disposition of default on national taxes imposed by the director of the tax office in the Republic of Korea, and the defendant also knew the facts. Thus, the defendant has the obligation to seek cancellation of the objection under Article 30 of the National Tax Number Act and Article 406 of the Civil Act, and the defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant, which was issued on the real estate listed in the attached Form in the attached Form, by restoring the plaintiff to its original state. Therefore, the above non-party BB's claim for the restoration of