2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. As to the Defendant’s shares among each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and Nonparty 0B

The contract of donation concluded on March 11, 2013 shall be revoked.

B. The defendant is entitled to the non-party 0B's share of the defendant of each real estate stated in the separate sheet

The registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on March 12, 2013 by the receipt No. 10302 will be implemented.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

(a) WhiteB on November 20, 2012, KKdo YYA YB, which was owned by it, on November 20, 2012, 125-1 forest land in bulk;

35,504 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the taxable real estate of this case") were transferred (sale to third parties on October 19, 2012).

B. The 0B returned on November 29, 2012 the transfer income tax on the transfer of the instant taxable real estate, but did not pay the transfer income tax, and the head of the Namyang District Tax Office decided and notified 0B of the transfer income tax of KRW 112,395,070 on March 31, 2013 with the due date set on March 31, 2013; however, 0B did not pay the said transfer income tax (the amount in arrears including the additional and increased additional charges as of August 31, 2014, the amount in arrears of KRW 22,254,210, including the additional charges and increased additional charges as of August 31, 2014) until the closing date of the instant pleadings.

C. On March 11, 2013, the 0B jointly owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet with the Defendant (the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 is each 0J (1/6 shares), 0H (1/6 shares), 00, 1/3 shares, and 0B (1/3 shares), and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 in the separate sheet No. 1/8 shares were jointly owned by 0JJ (1/8 shares), 00, 1/4 shares, 00 (1/4 shares), 1/4 shares, 00, 1/4 shares, and 0B (1/4 shares); hereinafter referred to as “the real estate of this case”). After concluding a donation agreement with respect to the shares of 0B shares, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 12, 2013 after concluding the agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff has the instant taxation claim against 0B, and 0B has caused debt excess status due to the instant donation, and thus, the instant donation has been made to the creditor, barring any special circumstances.

In this case, a fraudulent act is presumed to be the intention of 0BB. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s revocation by exercising the right of revocation against the Defendant, and sought implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of this case due to restitution.

2) The defendant's assertion

The real estate of this case is the real estate of this case that the defendant is the member of the clan (hereinafter referred to as the "members of the clan").

In 1980, when registering the preservation of the real estate of this case, the title trust registration was made under the joint signature of the members of the clan, such as whiteW and 0B, but after the death of the title trustee and the 0BB was unable to be known at any time when 90 years old or more than 90 years old, the title trustee was changed to the defendant who is the general secretary of the clan by preserving the clan property before the inheritance registration was made to the descendants of 0B, and the 0B was merely a title trustee who made the registration of the ownership transfer of the land of this case to the defendant who is a new title trustee by returning the clan property.

B. Determination

1) The debtor’s registration of transfer of real estate under its name pursuant to the title trust agreement

Upon completion, the main sentence of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name is applicable to the registration under the name of the debtor, and thus, since the above real estate is not owned by the debtor, it cannot be deemed as a responsible property for the debtor’s joint collateral. Even if the debtor concludes a sales contract with a third party on the above real estate and completes the registration of ownership transfer to that third party, it cannot be deemed as causing a decrease in the debtor’s responsible property, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act detrimental to the debtor’s general creditors, and it cannot be deemed that the debtor has an intent to injure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da5069, Mar. 10, 200)

2) With respect to whether the title trust of the instant real estate is held in trust, the health class Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12,

Each statement of evidence 18, 228, witness of the trial, and 00, each statement of evidence 18, 228, i.e., the following circumstances, i.e., the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2, i.e., the joint name of whiteW on August 1, 1981, YY, and 0B (each 1/3 equity), i.e., the separate sheet:

제3항 기재 부동산에 관하여 1980. 12. 15. 백WW, 백SS, 백YY, 백BB의 공동 명의로(각 1/4 지분) 각 소유권보존등기를 마쳤고, 이 사건 부동산 이외에도 1971. 7. 20. YY군 SS면 도장리 41-2 답 1,339㎡에 관하여 백WW, 백KK, 백BB, 백GG, 백SS의 공동 명의로(각 1/5 지분), 같은 리 44 답 96㎡, 같은 리 93-1 답 2,136㎡, 같은 리 93-3 답 2,919㎡(이하 이 사건 부동산을 제외한 나머지 부동산을 통틀어 '이 사건 관련 부동산'이라 한다)에 관하여 백WW, 백KK, 백BB, 백QQ, 백SS의 공동명의로(각 1/5 지분) 각 소유권이전등기를 마쳤는데, 위 공유자들은 모두 이 사건 종중원들인 점, ② 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 2003년도 종합토지세 및 2012년도 재산세를 이 사건 종중을 납세자로 하여 부과받은 적이 있고, 이 사건 관련 부동산에 관하여도 2011년도, 2012년도 재산세를 이 사건 종중을 납세자로 하여 부과받은 적이 있는 등 이 사건 부동산의 실제 소유자가 이 사건 종중이라고 볼 만한 객관적인 자료가 존재하는 점, ③ 피고 명의 농협통장(계좌번호 231061-52-××××××)의 예금주는 '백AA 수원백씨연기공파'로 기재되어 있고, 위 통장에는 피고와 종중회장인 백XX의 도장 두개가 찍혀 있는바, 위 통장은 이 사건 종중의 통장으로 피고가 관리하던 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 위 통장에서 종중이나 종중원들 앞으로 부과된 재산세 등을 지출하여 왔고, 이 사건 부동산을 피고가 취득하여 납부하게 된 취득세도 지출한 것으로 보이는 점, ⑤ 이 사건 종중 회장인 백XX과 종중원인 백SS은 이 사건 부동산이 종중 소유이고, 재산세 등을 종중에서 부담하며 관리해 오고 있었다고 진술하고 있는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 이 사건 종중이 이 사건 부동산의 실제 소유자이고, 이 사건 종중이 이 사건 부동산을 백BB 등에게 명의신탁하였다가 다시 백BB 소유지분을 피고에게 명의신탁한 것이라고 봄이 상당하다.

Therefore, since the 0B equity interest in the instant real estate is not owned by 0B, it cannot be deemed that it is a responsible property for the general creditors' joint collateral of 0B, and the instant donation contract cannot be deemed a fraudulent act, and it cannot be deemed that 0B had an intent to harm her. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so it is revoked by the defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.