A. B is delinquent in national taxes as follows:

Tax amount (unit: 23,768,080,080 30,934,060 of the global income tax on December 31, 2015, in the jurisdiction of the amount of delinquent local taxes (units): 36,610,610,270,418,488,480 of the global income tax on December 31, 2015; < Amended by Act No. 12842, Oct. 7, 2017, 2017; Act No. 12842, Oct. 7, 2017; Act No. 19017, Jan. 17, 2017; Act No. 1017,484,420 of the instant tax claim in the instant case

B. B’s disposal of property (1) B entered into a sales contract on August 21, 2018 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the Defendant, who is a birthe, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant on August 30, 2018.

(2) At the time of the above contract, B’s active property was KRW 72,230,060 (the value of the instant real property is KRW 50,000,000), and the foregoing tax liability was 48,418,480, and B was in excess of its obligation due to the above contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap 1 through 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 48,418,480 of the national tax bond against the Plaintiff’s existence of the preserved claim against B accrued prior to the instant sales contract, and thus, the revocation of the instant fraudulent act becomes the preserved claim.

B. Unless there are special circumstances, the act that B, in terms of debt excess, sells the instant real estate and alters it into money easily for consumption, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring special circumstances, and B was aware that the said sales contract would prejudice the general creditors, including the Plaintiff, and thus, the intention of harming B is recognized, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary.

C. The defendant's decision on the defendant's bona fide defense is in arrears with national taxes B.

Since B was unaware of the fact that the above trading would have become a state of excess of debt, it is argued that B was bona fide.

Since the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit, the beneficiary is responsible for proving his good faith in order to be exempted from his responsibility.

That is, in this case, the beneficiary.