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

Cheong-gu Office

On April 12, 2010, the reservation to sell and purchase the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and CCC is revoked. The Defendant will implement the procedure for each cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by the receipt OOO on April 12, 2010 of the attached list with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to CCC, including Busan District Court, and each registration procedure for ownership transfer registration completed by the receiptOOO on April 27, 201 of the same registry office.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Plaintiff’s ground for claim

B. As of May 20, 2005 to December 18, 2009, CCC, the Defendant’s father, transferred OO-type O-type 1040 square meters and five parcels (hereinafter “separate 6 real estate”) to the Plaintiff and was liable to pay capital gains tax (the final establishment date of the tax liability is February 28, 2010). Based on the notified tax amount, CCC’s transfer income tax on the Plaintiff was totaled KRW 00,000,000, but CCC was not paid at all, and as of June 2014, CCC’s provisional registration and its transfer registration should be cancelled on April 12, 2010 with the Defendant’s provisional registration on the instant real estate ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant provisional registration”). Accordingly, CCC’s ownership transfer registration should be cancelled on April 12, 2010.

2) Claim as to whether the period of filing a lawsuit has expired

Since the Plaintiff-affiliated 000 regional tax office’s 000 and public officials under its jurisdiction become aware of the fact that the instant trade reservation constitutes a fraudulent act in the course of conducting a delinquent tracking investigation between February 20, 2014 and August 19, 2014 in order to execute a disposition on default against CCC, the instant lawsuit brought before the lapse of one year thereafter is lawful in compliance with the exclusion period.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) The time limit for filing a lawsuit and the defense of this safety

On December 6, 2011, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that there was a promise to sell and purchase the instant case. In addition, on September 24, 2012, 2012, DDR’s DDR as its member, the Plaintiff made a disposition of deficits (hereinafter “instant disposition of deficits”) with respect to CCC as its non-property loss pursuant to Article 86 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 83 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was aware of the intent of fraudulent act and CCC’s death at the time of the instant disposition of deficits. However, since the instant lawsuit was filed on June 30, 2014 when one year has passed thereafter, it was unlawful for the exclusion period to lapse.

2) Good faith defenses

The defendant was not aware of the CCC's fraudulent act at all.

2. Determination as to whether the period for filing a lawsuit has expired

(a) Legal doctrine;

In the exercise of creditor's right of revocation, "the date when the creditor becomes aware of the ground for revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirements for creditor's right of revocation, i.e., the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that he/she would prejudice the creditor. Thus, it is insufficient to say that the debtor merely knows that he/she conducted a disposal act of the property, and it is not sufficient to satisfy the claims completely due to the lack of joint security of claims or lack of joint security already in the circumstances where the legal act would prejudice the creditor, and further, it is necessary to inform the debtor that he/she had the intent to harm the debtor, and it is difficult to presume that the debtor knew of the objective fact of the fraudulent act, and the burden of proof as to the lapse of the exclusion period is the other party to the creditor's revocation lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da5855, Apr. 26, 2013).

(b) Related statutes;

National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 11125, Dec. 31, 2011; Article 1 of the Addenda of the same Act) Article 86 of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 11125, Jan. 1, 2013)

(1) Where a taxpayer falls under any of the following cases, the head of a tax office may write off his/her loss:

1. Where the disposition on default is terminated, and the distributed amount appropriated to the amount in arrears falls short of such amount in arrears;

2. Cases falling under Article 85.

3. Where an extinctive prescription of national tax collection right is completed.

4. Where collection is deemed impossible, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(2) If the head of a tax office finds another seizable property after taking a disposition on loss for reasons under paragraph (1) 1, 2 or 4, he/she shall cancel such disposition without delay and issue a disposition on default.

Article 83 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23593, Feb. 2, 2012; Article 1 of the Addenda to the same Enforcement Decree)

(1) The disposal of deficit under Article 86 (1) 4 of the Act shall be limited to any of the following cases:

1. Where it is turned out that the defaulter is missing or he/she has no property;

2. Where a delinquent company becomes exempt from taxation liability pursuant to Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act;

(2) Where the head of a tax office intends to write off a deficit pursuant to paragraph (1) 1, he/she shall investigate and confirm the whereabouts of a delinquent taxpayer or whether a delinquent taxpayer has property through a local administrative agency or financial company: Provided, That he/she need not investigate and confirm if the delinquent national tax is less than 10

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The CCC transferred six separate lots of real estate as alleged by the Plaintiff, and thus became liable to pay capital gains tax to the Plaintiff.

2) The CCC made a promise to sell and purchase the instant real estate to the Defendant and completed the instant provisional registration and the instant transfer registration.

3) On December 6, 201, the Plaintiff-affiliated CCC sent a letter of guidance demanding the CCC to submit explanatory materials, such as financial materials, which can prove the payment of the price for the instant transfer registration (Evidence B No. 10-1).

4) On December 12, 201, the head of the FF Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control attached the CCC’s shares 00,000 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) on the ground that CCC’s default on capital gains tax.

5) On May 4, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the pre-announcement of taxation to the effect that the Defendant’s acquisition of the instant real estate by CCC constitutes a gift with no compensation (No. 10,000,000 won) on the ground that it constitutes a gift with no compensation (No. 10-3).

6) On September 24, 2012, the director of the DD Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control re-written disposal of the instant case in accordance with Article 86 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 83 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act as the non-property loss with respect to CCC.

7) The appellate court (Seoul Central District Court 2012NaOO) confirmed that the instant shares were real owners of EE Savings Bank, EE Savings Bank, and CCC is merely a title trustee, in the case involving the confirmation of shareholder rights between EE Savings Bank and CCC and third parties.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 12 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

According to the above facts, at the time of the instant purchase and sale reservation, CCC had no special property other than the instant real estate (the instant shares are not the property of CCC as seen earlier), and the Plaintiff knew the fact that the instant purchase and sale reservation was concluded around December 6, 201, and had already known the existence of the instant shares at the time of the instant disposal of deficits, notwithstanding the existence of the instant shares, the instant disposal of deficits was made once again on the ground of non-property. Thus, even if the instant shares were to exist, there was no possibility that the instant reservation did not constitute a fraudulent act due to the existence of the instant shares at the time of the first recognition of the existence of the instant purchase and sale reservation, but it was reasonable to view that the instant promise constitutes a fraudulent act that causes decrease in general property of CCC, and thus, it corresponds to the empirical rule 10 years prior to the date of the instant disposal of deficits and 20 years prior to the Plaintiff’s prior notice of the instant shares and 30 years prior to the date of the instant disposal of deficits.

3. Conclusion

If so, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.