This part of the WhiteO's assertion is without merit.

2) 피고 백☆ 은, 백A으로부터 1999. 4.경 금원을 차용하면서 그 무렵 백A의 어머

No completed the registration of ownership transfer of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, but the above.

Each real estate has been used continuously, and each of the above real estate has been donated from Kimo

8 million won shall be paid to 00,000 won on the ground that the 0A, previously held, disposes of each of the above property.

Since each of the above real property was purchased, and the excess of liabilities of 0A was not known at all,

He asserts that he is a bona fide beneficiary.

However, the above facts of recognition and the whole purport of the arguments are considered as a whole.

되는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 피고 백☆ 과 백A은 사촌 사이이고, 피고 백☆ 이 백A으로부터 금원을 차용하는 등 금전거래도 있어왔던 점, ② 피고 백☆ 은 이 사건 매매계약을 체결한 당일 백A에게 매매대금 전액인 800만 원을 지급하고 같은 날 별지 제2목록 기재 각 부동산에 관한 소유권이전등기를 마쳤는데, 매매계약 체결일에 매매대금 전액을 지급하고 소유권이전등기까지 마치는 것은 매우 이례적인 점, ③ 나아가, 피고 백☆ 의 주장에 따르더라도, 자신이 계속하여 사용하고 있던 별지 제2목록 기재 각 부동산을 백A이 갑작스럽게 처분한다고 하여 그 매매대금 800만 원을 지급하는 것이 경제적으로 무리였음에도 이를 마련하여 백A에게 지급하였다는 것인바, 피고 백☆ 으로서는 위 각 부동산을 매수하는 과정에서 백A이 위 각 부동산을 갑작스럽게 처분하

It is deemed that the reason for the intention, the economic situation, etc. at the time of the 00A has been sufficiently known.

이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 을 제1, 2호증의 각 기재만으로는 피고 백☆ 에 대한 악의의 추정이 번복되기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

(e)Indivate;

Therefore, this case concerning each real property listed in the separate sheet No. 1 between 00 and 00

증여계약 및 백A과 피고 백☆사이의 별지 제2목록 기재 각 부동산에 관한 이 사건

Since a sales contract is a fraudulent act, each cancellation shall be revoked, and as restitution, Defendant 00

The Do Governor shall register the cancellation of transfer of ownership registration completed with respect to each real estate listed in the attached Table 1.

를, 피고 백☆ 은 별지 제2목록 기재 각 부동산에 관하여 마친 소유권이전등기의 말소

Each registration procedure is required to be completed.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so ordered as per Disposition by admitting it.

shall be ruled.

(a) cancel each contract of gift concluded on December 20, 2010 between Defendant WhiteO and WhiteA (******************) respectively;

B. Defendant WhiteO shall implement the procedure for cancellation registration of each transfer of ownership completed by head of the Gwangju District Court No. 00000 on December 29, 2010 to WhiteA.

2. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2:

가. 피고 백☆ 과 백A 사이에 2010. 12. 29. 체결된 매매계약을 각 취소하고,

나. 피고 백☆ 은 백A에게 광주지방법원 장흥지원 2010. 12. 29. 접수 제00000호로 마친 각 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를 이행하라.

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

The following facts are recognized, either in dispute between the parties, or in Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the order to submit taxation information to the Seoul Regional Tax Office (Investigation2) of this Court.

A. Tax claims against the Plaintiff’s 0A

1) The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, the Plaintiff-affiliated Seoul Regional Tax Office, recognized that the WT 2nd floor operating group was suspected of arranging false tax invoices, and conducted a tax invoice tracking investigation with respect to 0A from July 20, 2010 to November 20, 2010. As a result of the above investigation, the Plaintiff-affiliated Seoul Regional Tax Office issued false tax invoices of an amount equivalent to KRW 1.63 billion at the operating group, and purchased false tax invoices of an amount equivalent to KRW 7.99 billion. From around 2007 to 2010, the Plaintiff-affiliated Seoul Regional Tax Office and the Gangnam District Tax Office determined that the Plaintiff-affiliated Seoul District Tax Office, from January 6, 2011 to April 1, 201, did not file a return on rental income and tax agent’s service fee income, added the income tax tax to the global income tax base that was assessed for 100,000 to 200,000,0000.

(b)An act of disposing of property of the 00A;

1) On December 20, 2010, the 00A entered into a gift agreement on each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) with Defendant WhiteO, one’s own children, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on December 29, 2010 to Defendant WhiteO as receipt No. 0000 on December 29, 2010.

2) 또한 백A은 2010. 12. 29. 자신의 사촌인 피고 백☆ 과 사이에 별지 제2목록 기재 각 부동산에 관한 매매계약(이하 '이 사건 매매계약'이라 한다)을 체결하고 같은 날 위 각 부동산에 관하여 피고 백☆ 에게 광주지방법원 장흥지원 2010. 12. 29. 접수 제00000호로 소유권이전등기를 마쳐주었다. 2.판단

A. According to Article 21, Paragraph 1, Item 1, Item 7 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the taxation claim of this case is established between June 30, 2006 and June 30, 2010, which is the date on which "the date on which the obligation to pay tax has been created" as stated in the above Table, and all of them are before the date of conclusion of the gift contract of this case and the sales contract of this case, the taxation claim of this case against 00A is the preserved claim of this case, which is subject to the gift contract of this case and the sales contract of this case.

1) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 11, and the purport of the entire pleadings, active property held by 00 million won at the time of entering into the instant gift contract, including deposit claims against each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 (a total of KRW 4,66.10,000 and KRW 6,860,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and about KRW 1,47,000,000,000,000,000 won for the loan obligations against the plaintiff and about KRW 1,46,444,00,00,000,000,000,000 won, considering the difference between the officially assessed land value and the market value, it seems that 0A was a status exceeding the obligation at the time of the instant gift contract.

2) 또한 채무초과 상태인 채무자가 자신의 재산을 타인에게 증여한 행위 및 자신의 유일한 재산인 부동산을 매각하여 소비하기 쉬운 금전으로 바꾸는 행위는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 채권자에 대하여 사해행위가 된다고 할 것인바(대법원 1998. 5. 12. 선고 97다57320 판결, 대법원 2010. 2. 25. 선고 2007다28819, 28826 판결 등 참조), 백☆이 별지 제1목록 부동산을 피고 백OO에게 증여한 행위와 별지 제2목록 부동산을 피고 백☆ 에게 매도한 행위는 모두 사해행위로 평가된다. 위와 같이 이 사건 증여계약 및 매매계약이 모두 사해행위로 평가되는 이상 백A의 사해의사 및 피고들의 악의도 추정된다. 다.사해의사관련주장에관한판단

1) The Defendants asserted to the effect that, as the instant gift contract and sales contract were concluded before the Plaintiff’s imposition of value-added tax and global income tax was made, the Plaintiff’s intention is not recognized.

2) However, according to the above facts of recognition, since 006 to 2010 underreporting the value-added tax and global income tax by purchasing false tax invoices and filing a return on rental income and tax agent fees, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was aware that the Plaintiff was aware of the circumstances that the Plaintiff would impose value-added tax and global income tax on the aforementioned false tax invoice purchase agreement from July 20, 201 to November 20, 201, after conducting an investigation on the aforementioned false tax invoice purchase agreement and then imposing a reasonable amount of value-added tax and global income tax. Accordingly, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

(d)Judgment on the good faith defense;

1) Defendant WhiteO asserts to the effect that he is a bona fide beneficiary, as the WhiteO was a person who was under aviation cancer treatment on or around May 2009, under the agreement with other children, due to severe depression and stress in the process of aviation cancer treatment, and Defendant WhiteO was a donation of his own property to Defendant WhiteO under the agreement with other children. As such, Defendant WhiteO’s failure to know at all about the excess of its obligations, etc.

However, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary has the burden of proving that the beneficiary is bona fide (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da70079, Mar. 24, 2005). In recognizing that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, evidence, etc. shall be based on objective and obtainable evidence, etc., and only on the debtor's unilateral statement or a statement that is merely a third party's explanation, etc., that the beneficiary was bona fide, it shall not be readily concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da11617, May 28, 2009). The above assertion by Defendant 00O alone is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant 0O, a child of 00, received each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 from 0A without knowing that it exceeded the obligation of 0A, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.