(a) cancel the sales contract concluded on August 9, 201 between BB and the Defendant, and

B. The Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on August 9, 201 by the Busan District Court North Busan District Court’s Northern District Court’s receipt on August 9, 2011.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. The relationship between the parties

The strongB is a person who bears tax obligations against the plaintiff, and the defendant is a partner of the strongB.

B. The Plaintiff’s establishment of a taxation claim against the strongB

1) The strongB was closed on February 1, 2010 when it was engaged in the scrap metal and 2 non-ferrous steel wholesale business with the trade name of OO-dong 52-9 at OO-dong.

2) The KangB received the purchase tax invoice from Kim E-E operating D Co., Ltd. during the first period of 2009, and in February 2009, it reported and paid the value-added tax for the year 2009 by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount in the relevant taxable period and adding it to deductible expenses.

3) After conducting a tax offense investigation against D companies, the director of the Busan District Tax Office confirmed D companies as a fake tax invoice sales and notified the Plaintiff of the data. Accordingly, the Plaintiff deemed that the said tax invoice was different from the fact, and made a purchase tax deduction on August 5, 2011, and notified DB of the imposition and2 of the value-added tax (this tax) on January 31, 2009 and the value-added tax (this tax) on February 2, 2009 on January 31, 201 and the Value-Added Tax (this tax) on January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff imposed the KRW 1 (Additional Tax) value-added tax and the KRW O (Additional Tax) on January 2, 2013 on January 31, 2013.

4) The strongB is an OOO(hereinafter referred to as “instant taxation claim”) that is currently in arrears with the obligation to pay the value-added tax, etc., including the amount in arrears.

(c) sales contract between B and the Defendant;

1) On August 9, 201, 201, KangB made a sale of the real estate (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) recorded in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant sale contract”) to the Defendant, who is the same resident, and on the same day, completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant real estate in the Defendant’s future on the grounds of the said sale.

2) At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, Gangwon was in excess of its obligation with no particular property, other than the instant real property.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that serve as the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future, and where a claim has been established as a result of the fact-finding in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da64038, Nov. 26, 2002). This legal principle applies to a taxation claim, as it applies to a taxation claim, even if there was no specific taxation disposition at the time of the fraudulent act, and if a taxation claim has been established specifically through a series of procedures, such as a tax disposition, even if there was a high probability that a claim may be established in the near future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67536, Jun. 29, 2007).

According to the above facts, a part of the instant taxation claim has already been established prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and there was an abstract liability which serves as the basis of the establishment of a part of the instant taxation claim, and there was a high probability of the creation of the claim in the future, and thereafter, the instant taxation claim becomes a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation, inasmuch as the instant taxation claim becomes a specific and conclusive by the Plaintiff’s decision and notification thereof became final and conclusive.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

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 proving that the purchaser or the transferee did not have bad faith is the beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001).

According to the above facts, although Gangwon had been in excess of its obligation at the time of the instant sales contract, the act of entering into the instant sales contract with the Defendant as to the instant real estate, which is one of its sole property, and completing the registration of ownership transfer of this case constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, who is the creditor, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary.

C. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

On February 25, 2010, the Defendant lent the amount of KRW 00 on six occasions to Gangwon-B, including the payment of value-added tax on behalf of the Gangwon-do Governor, etc. After which the Gangwon-do was unable to repay the above money to the Defendant, the Defendant was entitled to the registration of ownership transfer in the form of sale and purchase of the instant real estate, and it was alleged to the effect that he was in good faith. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the sales contract of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership of this case to the GangwonB due to restitution to its original state.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.