A. The contract of donation concluded on December 7, 2010 between the defendant and the non-party B shall be revoked.

B. The Defendant will implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the transfer registration of shares that was completed on December 10, 2010 under the receipt No. 50864 of the District Court Macheon District Court Macheon Registry.

2. (a) between the Defendant and SB, revocation of a gift agreement concluded on December 7, 2010 with respect to each of the real property shares listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list shall be made.

B. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day after the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

''

The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including a serial number), by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. The Plaintiff notified Nonparty SeoB of all of the national tax claims 2010 as follows. The amount in arrears at the time of the instant lawsuit reaches KRW 000,000.

B. Meanwhile, the bookB on December 7, 2010 with respect to each real estate share listed in the separate sheet 1 and the separate sheet 2.

The Defendant, who was his own child, entered into a contract on donation with the Defendant, and completed the registration of share transfer under the receipt No. 50864 on December 10, 2010 by the Jung-gu District Court Macheon District Court Macheon District Court 50864, but SeoB had no particular property other than each of the above real property shares at the time of the said donation, and was liable to pay taxes as above.

2. Determination on the grounds for the revocation of a fraudulent act

A. In full view of the fact that SeoB is liable for tax payment as above to the Plaintiff, and that the above real estate shares were donated to the Defendant in excess of its obligation under the circumstances where there is no particular property, such gift act constitutes an act of deception. Moreover, in full view of the fact that SeoB has given the instant real estate to the Defendant for a long time after it received a tax payment notice as above, and that the Defendant is the child of SeoB, SeoB may be deemed to have been aware of its intention at the time of the above donation, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to have been presumed to have been the beneficiary. Accordingly, the above donation contract concluded between the Defendant and SeoB should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

B. Therefore, with respect to each real estate share listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the above share transfer by restoring it to its original state.

C. According to the records in the separate sheet Nos. 3 and 4-2 and 3 as to the shares in each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list, the defendant is unable to return the original property because he/she again sold the shares in the same decoration to the non-party corporation corporation, and promised to sell the shares in the separate sheet No. 2, and made a provisional registration after he/she donated the shares in the separate sheet No. 2. The value of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list can be recognized as 00, respectively. Thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the above value of KRW 00,000. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following this judgment to the day of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts to the effect that there was no intention of deception because the defendant settled the subrogated payment for the guaranteed debt, the overdue labor cost, etc. paid by the defendant in lieu of SeoB and realizing the right to the end-of-life loss. However, it is recognized as a case where the defendant knowingly received the donation from SeoB, even though the defendant knew that SeoB was in excess of his/her obligation as above, even if the defendant had a reason to receive the transfer of each of the above real estate shares due to his/her claim against SeoB, it cannot be said that there was no intention of deception. The defendant's argument is rejected.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.