A. Revocation of a gift agreement concluded on January 23, 2009 between the Defendant and Nonparty AA (****************) and:

B. The defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on February 3, 2009 by the court reinforcement registry office of this Court and completed on February 3, 2009.

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

A. On Aug. 9, 1985, Cho Dong-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City 233-2 Do-dong, transferred on Aug. 24, 2007 the above land on Oct. 24, 2007 and filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act by asserting that the above land was self-employed for not less than eight years.

B. However, after conducting an on-site investigation on December 4, 2008, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the pre-announcement of taxation while failing to meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of self-employed farmland. On February 23, 2009, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff to pay KRW 000 of the transfer income tax for the year 2007 by applying the heavy taxation rate on the grounds that the said land constitutes non-business land. On September 5, 201, the Defendant corrected the said transfer income tax to KRW 000 by applying the general taxation rate.

C. The Defendant, who was ChoA and his wife, concluded a donation contract on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) on January 23, 2009, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer completed by the receipt No. 2397 on February 3, 2009.

D. Although, after the conclusion of the above gift agreement, ChoA only owns a small-type 1996 small-scale sacrifies, it bears the obligation of capital gains tax of KRW 000 and is in excess of its obligation as seen above.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6, Eul 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's preserved claim

In principle, a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation should have arisen before an obligor performs a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. However, at the time of the juristic act, there is a high probability that the legal relationship, which is the basis of the establishment of the claim, has already been established at the time of the juristic act, and that the claim is created in the near future, and where the probability of the occurrence of the claim is realized in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37821, Mar. 2

In light of the above facts, although the time when the plaintiff's decision and notice of the transfer income tax was made after the conclusion of the above gift contract between the defendant and ChoA, the time when the transfer income tax claim was established after the conclusion of the above gift contract between the defendant and ChoA, and the time when the transfer income tax claim was established on December 31, 2007 when the taxable period was terminated in accordance with Article 21 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. As such, the legal relationship which is the basis of the occurrence of the claim at the time of the donation contract

B. Whether the fraudulent act was established

According to the above facts, since the MediationA completed the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate of this case to the defendant pursuant to the above donation contract, it shall be deemed that the above donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act, and it is reasonable to deem that the MediationA knew that the above donation contract may prejudice the plaintiff, who is the creditor, due to the above donation contract, and the defendant's bad faith as the beneficiary is presumed.

Therefore, the above donation contract should be cancelled, and the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the real estate in this case should be cancelled due to its restitution.

3. Conclusion

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