2. The Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on January 11, 2016 by the Busan District Court and the receipt No. 3220 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to Nonparty bb.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. BB, who was in office as the representative director of CC General Construction Co., Ltd., filed a return on the tax amount of KRW 0,000,000 for the recognition of August 11, 2017 and KRW 0,000,000 for the 2014-year salary paid by the said company, and KRW 0,000,000 for the 2014-year salary paid by the said company, but did not pay the tax amount of KRW 0,00,000 for the global income tax for the year 2014.

B. Accordingly, on December 1, 2017, the director of the Ddd Tax Office notified bB to pay 0,000,000,000 won of global income tax for the year 2014 until December 31, 2017. BB did not pay the said global income tax. As regards the said global income tax, the amount of delinquent tax, including the surcharge, up to the date, exceeds KRW 0,00,00,000 as shown below [Attachment 1].

[Attachment 1 omitted]

C. BB entered into a gift agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) with the wife on January 11, 2016 with respect to the real estate listed on the separate sheet owned by itself (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). On the same day, BB completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant as stated in the order.

D. BB did not have any active property except that of the instant real estate at the time of the conclusion of the instant gift agreement, the value of which is equivalent to KRW 00,000,000, and that of KRW 00,000,00.

E. Meanwhile, on October 13, 2005, BB obtained a loan of KRW 00,000,000 from e Bank Co., Ltd. with the collateral of the instant real estate (the maximum debt amount 00,000,000). On November 13, 2015, BB repaid all the principal and interest of the loan around November 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 through 7 evidence, Eul 1 evidence (including paper numbers), the result of this court's order to submit financial transaction information to e Bank Co., Ltd., the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against BB at the time of the conclusion of the gift contract of this case (the date when the liability to pay global income tax for the year 2014 was established) and the above claim becomes a preserved claim for revocation of the fraudulent act. The amount of the claim subject to revocation of the fraudulent act includes the interest or delay damages incurred after the fraudulent act was concluded until the closing of argument in fact-finding proceedings. The additional charges under Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act are the kind of incidental tax imposed in the meaning of interest on the unpaid portion if national taxes are not paid by the due date. If national taxes are not paid by the due date without the final procedure of the person who has the authority to impose the tax, the amount can be determined by the due date if national taxes are not paid by the due date without the final procedure of the person who has the authority to impose the tax, and as long as the amount of the first notice of the tax claim is recognized as a preserved claim against the obligee’s right of revocation, the amount of the claim includes the additional charges accrued after the fraudulent act and the closing of argument (see, etc.).

Therefore, the plaintiff's taxation claim 0,000,000,000 won against BB is the preserved claim against the revocation of the fraudulent act.

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

The debtor's act of selling real estate, which is one of his own property, and replacing it with or transferring it to another person without compensation, becomes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring special circumstances. Thus, the debtor's intent of deception is presumed to exist, and the burden of proof that the purchaser or the transferee did not maliciously exist is the beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001).

It is reasonable to view that BB, like the above recognized facts, concluded the instant gift contract with the Defendant, the wife, regarding the instant real estate, one of its sole property in excess of the debt, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is hard to acknowledge the fact that the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(c) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Therefore, the gift contract of this case must be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case as to the real estate of this case to BB as the restoration following the cancellation of fraudulent act.

Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was cancelled after the registration of the ownership transfer of the instant real estate, and that the Plaintiff cannot seek the revocation of the entire donation contract of this case and the return of the original property of this case. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 200,00 won as to the instant real estate on October 13, 2005, the right to collateral security was established with respect to the instant real estate, and the right to collateral security was cancelled on April 19, 2019, following the completion of the registration of the ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant, on April 19, 2019. However, in full view of the statement of evidence No. 7 and the order of submission of financial transaction information to e Bank Co., Ltd. of this court, the right to collateral security was not repaid at the time of the donation contract of this case, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s right to collateral security was not recovered unfairly or has not been claimed as a joint collateral.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.