2. The sales contract concluded on June 28, 2013 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and B shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 79,496,100.

3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 79,496,100 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

4. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

A.B did not pay to the Plaintiff national taxes as listed in the following table:

B. On June 28, 2013, the Defendant purchased each share listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant share”) from BB in the purchase price of KRW 1.725 billion (hereinafter “the instant sale”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant share due to the instant sale on July 1, 2013.

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

With respect to the instant lawsuit claiming that the instant transaction constitutes a fraudulent act of thisB, and seeking its revocation and restitution, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit filed on December 20, 2017, when one year has elapsed from that time, is unlawful, by adding the exclusion period to the instant lawsuit filed on December 20, 2017.

B. Determination

1) A lawsuit for revocation by a creditor shall be brought within one year from the date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act). The "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation" in exercising the creditor's right of revocation means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor had committed a fraudulent act while being aware of the fact that the debtor had committed a disposal act of the property, which is insufficient to simply know that the debtor was aware of the fact that the debtor conducted a disposal act of the property, and further to know the fact that the debtor had an intent to know of the existence of a specific fraudulent act. Meanwhile, the limitation period and the burden of proof lies in the party to the lawsuit for revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102, Mar. 26

2) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of evidence No. 7-1, No. 7-2, and No. 6-4 of the evidence No. 7-4 of the pleading, the public official in charge ofCC tax secretary, who did not pay the tax notified to thisB on April 24, 2014, printed out the current status table of data, such as delinquent taxpayer’s property, in order to identify the seizable property, etc. for disposal of delinquent debts, and this BB became aware of the sale of the instant shares on June 28, 2013. The Plaintiff, on June 27, 2013, indicated that “○○○○-Gun, ○○○○○○○ 64-1, 929 square meters, was insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act had been revoked on the ground that each of the above shares was sold or sold on January 27, 2015. However, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff’s assertion was insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act was revoked.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a) Claims for preservation and fraudulent acts;

According to the facts established earlier, B’s notice of national tax and delinquent tax amount of KRW 136,04,160 shall be the obligee’s right of revocation. In addition, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as indicated in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of this case, B was 1,758,02,587 won (i.e., active property at the time of the sale of this case + KRW 1.72,500,00 won + KRW 1,210,532 shares among ○○○○○○○ ○○○-gun 97-29, 13.35/113 shares among 97-44, 117-5, 492 shares among 97-4, 97-4, 97-52/538, 400, 3000 won + KRW 400,000,000,000 won (negative).

(b) A deceased noble doctor;

The Defendant asserts that this case’s equity shares were owned by several real estate, automobiles, stocks, etc. other than the instant equity shares, and thus, this case’s intent is not presumed, and the Defendant did not know of the excess of debt of BB. However, it is reasonable to deem that BB, among creditors, sold the instant equity shares to the Defendant among the creditors, was, in principle, a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, which is another creditor, and that BB, the debtor, was engaged in the instant trade with recognition of the circumstance that this case’s equity shares fell short of the joint collateral of the claim. Furthermore, the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to have been presumed to have been the beneficiary, and there is no other circumstance to deem the Defendant as bona fide. The instant trade should be revoked by the Plaintiff’

(c) Scope of revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

(1) Obligation to compensate for value;

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 2, in full view of the purport of the argument, the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the "mortgage") was established on October 31, 2006 with the debtor KimD as to each of the entire real estate including the shares of this case, and the defendant completed the registration of change of the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the "mortgage") with the debtor, the maximum debt amount of the defendant 250 million won on June 30, 2009. The amount of the secured debt of this case was KRW 1,515,737,892 at the time of the sale of this case. The right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the "mortgage") was cancelled on March 18, 2015, which was after the sale of this case. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the value of the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the "right to collateral security") with the cancellation of fraudulent act.

2) Determination of the scope of compensation for value

The value compensation should be limited to the amount of joint collateral value of the object of the fraudulent act and the amount of creditor's preserved claim amount.

A) Plaintiff’s preserved claim: 136,004,160 won

B) Joint security value of the instant share

Each obligee meeting the requirements for obligee’s right of revocation is entitled to seek restitution of the obligor’s own right. Thus, if multiple creditors file a lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act and restitution at the same time or at different periods, these lawsuits do not constitute double lawsuit, and the judgment became final and conclusive upon winning a claim for revocation of fraudulent act and restitution of the same fraudulent act, the obligee’s subsequent claim does not bring no benefit to the protection of the other obligees’ rights, and the other obligee’s claim for revocation of fraudulent act and restitution of its value would no benefit to the protection of rights within the extent of overlap with the other obligee’s claim for restitution of its value (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da51457, Nov. 25, 2005). Accordingly, the Defendant’s judgment of revocation of this case’s sales contract and restitution of its original claim within the scope of KRW 70,070,0000,0000,0000,000 won per annum 167,006,07.

4. Conclusion

Within the scope of KRW 127,766,08 among the lawsuits of this case, the part of the claim for revocation of fraudulent act and restoration to original state shall be dismissed. The claims of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.