A. On August 28, 2017, B entered into a sales contract with C to sell KRW 581,00,000 owned land and buildings Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) to C, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with C on January 12, 2018.

B. B did not report capital gains tax regarding the sale and purchase of each of the instant real estate, and on August 7, 2018, the head of the East capital tax office affiliated with the Plaintiff notified B of KRW 127,16,590 regarding the sale and purchase of each of the instant real estate as the payment deadline on August 31, 2018.

C. B, based on January 15, 2019, at the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit, did not pay KRW 136,513,290 in total of KRW 6,86,970 as of January 15, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The existence of the preserved claim has already been established at the time of the fraudulent act, and it is highly probable that the claim would have been created in the near future based on the existing legal relationship, and where the probability has been realized in the near future, the obligee’s right of revocation may become the preserved claim in the near future.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007). The Plaintiff’s above transfer income tax claim against B is highly probable as to the occurrence of the claim at the time of sale of each of the instant real estate by B. Since it was imposed on B thereafter, the total amount of KRW 136,513,290, including transfer income tax and its additional charges on B, is the preserved claim subject to revocation of fraudulent act.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, B, upon entering into a sales contract with C on August 28, 2017 with respect to each of the instant real estate, received KRW 50,000,000 as a check from C as a down payment.