2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The property division agreement concluded on July 18, 2005 between the defendant and ○○○ shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 328,530,950. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 328,530,950 with interest of KRW 328,530,950 with interest of KRW 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or each evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2-3, 12, 14, 17-1, 3, 4, and 17-1, 17-1, 1, and 17-4, and the testimony of the witness Kim Jong-○, respectively.

A. From April 13, 2005 to May 3, 2005, the head of the ○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control conducted a tax investigation on the ○○ Government Partnership (hereinafter “○○ Government Partnership”) with respect to ○ Government Partnership (hereinafter “the ○○ Government Partnership”) and determined the total amount of KRW 13,782,830 as corporate tax for the year 200 and KRW 65,040,870 as corporate tax for the year 2001, KRW 9,391,50 as value-added tax for the second year of 200, KRW 33,373,760, KRW 8,214, and KRW 120 as global income for the year 209, KRW 797, KRW 209 as global income for the year 205, KRW 360 as of July 31, 200, KRW 209 as of each of the above global income for the year 2005.7 years as of 206.

B. However, ○○○ Government did not pay each of the above corporate tax and value-added tax. When ○○ Government did not recognize that there was no property enough to collect delinquent taxes against ○○ Government, the head of ○○ Tax Office designated ○○ as a secondary taxpayer and imposed KRW 129,803,130 in total of the above corporate tax and value-added tax (=3,782,830 won as corporate tax for the year 2000 + KRW 65,040,870 + KRW 65,040,870 as corporate tax for the year 201 + KRW 9,391,50 for the second period of 200 + KRW 33,373,760 for the value-added tax for the year 1,201 + KRW 8,214,120 for the first period of 202 + KRW 20 for the taxation claim of this case).

C. Meanwhile, on November 9, 1989, Kim○-○ married with the Defendant and lived with two children under the chain of agreement on 1994. In other words, he married with the Defendant on December 24, 1996, but married with the Defendant on July 7, 2005, he married with the Defendant on July 18, 2005, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the property division agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “property division agreement of this case”) on each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Defendant on July 18, 2005.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the property division agreement of this case was revoked within the limit of the amount of the Plaintiff’s tax claim and that the Defendant has a duty to pay to the Plaintiff equivalent amount of the above tax claim, since it was impossible to refund the original claim because it was revoked on July 19, 2005, when the registration of the establishment of ownership transfer under the name of the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (right to collateral security (right to collateral security (right to collateral security) was revoked on July 19, 2005, when it was highly probable that Kim○ had already borne considerable debt at the time of making the property division agreement of this case, and that the Plaintiff would have borne tax liability against the Plaintiff, and that the property division agreement of this case was concluded with the Defendant by completing the registration of ownership transfer on each real estate of this case.

B. Determination

(1) Determination as to the existence of the preserved claim

First, we examine whether the tax claim of this case becomes the preserved claim of this case, and the fact that the plaintiff imposed the tax claim of this case against Kim ○ as the payment period on January 31, 2006, which was after July 18, 2005 when the division of property agreement of this case was concluded. However, in cases where the tax authority deemed the amount included in gross income that was released from the company to be reverted to the representative and disposed of as bonus, if the disposition of income is made as the representative, it shall be subject to the earned income tax, and the amount of income shall be the date when the tax claim of this case was provided with labor during the pertinent business year. Thus, the tax liability of global income tax by the disposal of this case shall be established at the time when the taxable period to which the corresponding income belongs expires expires pursuant to Article 21 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes expires (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du4604, Jul. 13, 2006; 2010Du13010.

Then, the taxation claim of this case 2 is established when the facts constituting legal requirements such as the principal taxpayer's default, etc. as to whether the tax claim of this case 2 can be the preserved claim of this case. According to the facts acknowledged above, since the plaintiff imposed the above corporate tax and the value-added tax on 000 before July 31, 2005 on 2005, the tax claim of this case 2 against 00,000 after July 18, 2005, which was the property division agreement of this case, was established around August 1, 2005, but it is probable that the tax claim of this case 2,000,000 had already been established at the time of this case's legal act which becomes the object of revocation of fraudulent act, and it is highly probable that the claim of this case 2,000,000 won was established at the time of this case's expiration of the taxation claim of this case 2,000,000 won.

(2) Determination as to the establishment of fraudulent act

(A) In order to become a fraudulent act, the debtor's act of disposing of his/her property may cause a decrease in the debtor's whole property and thus, the debtor's joint security of claims is not sufficient. In other words, the debtor's passive property should be more than the debtor's active property.

Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as to the above 400 m2 or 6, Gap's 2-12, 15 m2, and Gap's 16 m2's m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m30 m20 m200 m20 m20 m30 m20 m20 m20 m300 m20 m20 m20 m30 m20 m30 m20 m20 m20

(B) Even if the division of property is in excess of the debt due to the agreement on division of property in this case accepted the Plaintiff’s claim, the division of property in divorce is a system that contributes to the maintenance of the other party’s livelihood at the same time to liquidate and distribute the actual common property held by the married couple, but at the same time to the divorce after the divorce. However, the division of property may be divided including the nature of the benefit for compensating for mental damage (deficial material) caused by the divorce by the act of the split-off. Thus, even if the division of property becomes insolvent by the division of property, it is so excessive that the division of property would not be reasonable against the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, and the division of property is not subject to the obligee’s right of revocation as a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance to recognize that the division of property is in excess of the property actually formed by the split-off, barring the above special circumstance, it is limited to the extent that the property becomes revoked by the obligee’s right of revocation as a fraudulent act.

In the instant case, there is no specific assertion and proof by the Plaintiff on special circumstances regarding the division of property between the Defendant and Kim ○, Kim ○○, and the Defendant as excessive division of property beyond a considerable degree. In addition, in light of the following: (a) the aforementioned facts and the written evidence Nos. 3 and 4, comprehensively considered the overall purport of the pleadings, Kim ○○ and the Defendant engaged in economic activities, such as the period of marriage between the Defendant and Kim ○ and the Defendant, due to abuse and continuous violence caused by her wife evidence, Kim ○○ and the Defendant caused divorce; and (b) Kim ○○ and the Defendant owned considerable real estate even after the instant division of property, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s above assertion as excessive division of property beyond a considerable degree.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.