2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with interest of 20% per annum from January 9, 2014 to the day of complete payment. 3. The plaintiff's remaining main claims are dismissed.

4. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The contract for donation shall be revoked, and the defendant shall be entitled to 00 won and this decision shall be delivered to the plaintiff.

shall pay 5% interest per annum from the day after the day of full payment to the day of full payment. Preliminary, the share

The judgment as referred to in paragraph (2).

(a) A taxation claim;

1) On February 16, 201, AA transferred to BB land and its ground (hereinafter “instant 1 real estate”) 214, Dong-dong DD2, Seoul, to KRW 000,00, and on June 14, 2011, the Plaintiff reported capital gains tax on June 14, 201, but did not pay it. On June 22, 2011, GGHHH-dong 1039-2, 1042, and 1042, and 1042, and 1042, and 1,1042, and 183 square meters (hereinafter “2 real estate”) were transferred to B, but did not report capital gains tax on KRW 1,130,00,00,000, and the Plaintiff did not return capital gains tax on the total amount of 1,130,000,000 won as of June 22, 2011.

(1) Capital gains tax on April 30, 2011 201 0000

(2) Transfer income tax on 201.07.31, 2012.30 000

(3) Value-added tax on December 31, 2010 00

(4) Value-added tax: < Amended by Act No. 11011, Oct. 31, 2011> 00

(5) Value-added tax: Value-added tax on October 31, 2011 000

(6) Global income tax on December 31, 2010 636,401,110

(b) AA’s disposal act;

1) On July 11, 2011, subrogation (hereinafter “instant subrogation”)

A) On October 14, 2009, the Defendant borrowed 420,000,000 won from MMF Mutual Savings Banks (hereinafter “MMF Mutual Savings Banks”) at the interest rate of 11% per annum and on October 14, 201.

B) On October 13, 2009, AA transferred the instant two real estate to EE on June 22, 201, to secure the above loan obligation against the non-party bank, which is a part of the instant two real estate, to the non-party bank, the co-ownership of the instant two real estate on the land other than Seoul HHH Dong 1042, which is a part of the instant two real estate, and on the same 1042 to 188,00,000,000 won, and the registration of creation of a mortgage on the debtor's neighboring land was completed. C) On July 11, 2011, the instant two real estate was transferred to EE on June 2, 201, and the registration of creation of a mortgage was revoked on the same day by paying the Defendant's debt to the non-party bank as the above loan to the non-party bank as KRW 424,851,197 on the same day.

2) Donation on July 13, 2012 (hereinafter “instant donation”)

1) Transfer income tax on real estate of this case

2) Transfer income tax on real estate 2 of this case

A) On February 16, 2011, AA transferred the instant real estate to BB, and the part on residence of the 4th floor tenant is that AA is responsible for the luxity and that 50,000,000 won is kept by BB until the luxity date.

B) On July 9, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 50,000,00 from BB on behalf of BB on behalf of BB after the completion of the order of residence of the fourth-class tenant under the foregoing special agreement, and then used KRW 30,00,000 in individual terms and conditions under the understanding of AA on July 13, 2012. The Defendant sold the instant 1,2 real estate to the present from the time of the act of subrogation and the act of donation. On the other hand, AA disposes of the instant 1,36,401,110 of its tax liability against the Plaintiff to the present time, while the 636,401,110 of its total amount of debt exceeds its obligation. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute with the Plaintiff, the entries in subparagraphs 1 through 11 of A (including the number number) and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. Determination on the claim for revocation of fraudulent act

A. Determination on this safety defense

1) Defendant’s defense

AA did not pay the capital gains tax on the instant real estate by August 31, 201, which was due date, the Plaintiff confirmed the financial status of AAA through the National Tax Service’s computer network as part of its collection measures on September 201. In that process, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the instant real estate was transferred and the collateral security of the Nonparty bank, which was established on the instant real estate 2, was cancelled. The Plaintiff sought revocation by deeming AA as a donation by subrogation of the Defendant’s debt to the Nonparty bank with the real estate transfer proceeds. However, according to the above circumstances, the Plaintiff was aware of the ground for revocation of the fraudulent act around September 201. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the fraudulent act filed after the lapse of the exclusion period of one year thereafter is unlawful.

2) Determination

In the exercise of the right of revocation, "the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the obligor becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while knowing that the obligee would prejudice the obligee, which is not sufficient to know simply the fact that the obligor had conducted a disposal act of the property, and further, it is required to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that the obligor had an intent to deceive the obligor (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da3262, Sept. 29, 200). In addition, this defense is based on the premise that the Plaintiff confirmed the property status of AAA by using the National Tax Service’s computer network around September 201, the Defendant did not have any evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if the Plaintiff confirmed the financial status of AA around the beginning of September 201, and was aware of the fact that the instant real estate was transferred and the cancellation of the right to collateral security of the non-party bank established on the instant real estate 2, such fact alone cannot be inferred to the effect that the Plaintiff, at the time of the instant real estate transfer, subrogated for the Defendant to the non-party bank with the proceeds of the transfer of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff paid a loan to the non-party bank by the Defendant, which caused the shortage of common security of general creditors or the shortage of common security already occurred, and that the Plaintiff was aware of the intention to harm AA.

Therefore, the defendant's defense does not appear to be any part of the defendant's defense.

B. Judgment on the merits

(i) the existence of the preserved claim

The remaining tax claims except for the transfer income tax on the 2nd real estate were established from December 31, 2010 to June 30, 201. The transfer income tax on the 2nd real estate in this case was established on July 31, 2011 or on June 22, 2011, and there was a legal relationship that forms the basis of establishing a tax claim due to the conclusion of a sales contract on June 22, 201, which is the transfer of the act of subrogation. When the tax requirements stipulated under the law are satisfied, it was highly probable that the tax claim is established by the tax authority for establishing the relevant tax liability or the taxpayer's act without any special need, and the tax claim is established on July 31, 201 (in relation to the gift act in this case, the Plaintiff's transfer income tax on the 2nd real estate in this case had already been established on July 31, 201, and thus, the obligee's right of revocation against the Plaintiff's act of subrogation was established.)

A) Act of subrogation (main claim) of this case

The plaintiff primarily considers the subrogation act of this case as a donation to the defendant of AA and seeks its revocation.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as above, i.e., ① AA shall be a surety who has set up a collateral on part of the instant real estate in order to secure a loan obligation to the non-party bank, and when a surety who has pledged his/her property to secure his/her property to secure the debtor's debt, he/she may exercise the right to demand reimbursement against the debtor, ② AA and the defendant shall not be deemed to have given up the right to demand reimbursement against the defendant or exempted the defendant from the obligation to demand reimbursement. ③ As long as AA has the right to demand reimbursement against the defendant, the defendant cannot be deemed to have taken any advantage of the act of subrogation in this case, as long as AA has the right to demand reimbursement against the defendant, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim does not exist, and there is no need to further examine the remainder of the claim.

B) The gift act of this case

According to the above facts, AA shall be deemed to have donated 30,000,000 won to the defendant on July 13, 2012. If the debtor donated her own property to another person under excess of his/her obligation, such act constitutes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstances, and thus, the act of donation in this case constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the plaintiff as a general creditor of AA, who is the tax claim. In addition, AA shall be presumed to have known that the act of donation in this case was insufficient to secure the common security of general creditors, and further, the defendant's bad faith is presumed to have been committed by the beneficiary.

(iii) the revocation and restitution of fraudulent act;

Therefore, the gift act of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the original property as cash with respect to the method of restitution to the original state. Therefore, the restitution to the original state should be made by means of equivalent compensation.

Ultimately, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 30,000,000 won as a donation from AA to its value compensation and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day when the full payment is made

3. Judgment on a creditor subrogation claim;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

If the act of subrogation in this case cannot be deemed as a donation to the defendant of AA, it shall be deemed that he has the right to indemnity against the defendant who is the debtor as the surety's surety. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to indemnity against the defendant who is the debtor. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to indemnity against the defendant in lieu of the insolvent AA, as preliminary, 424,851,197 won and damages for delay.

(i)the need for conservation claims and conservation;

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff has a claim against AA in KRW 636,401,110, and the fact that AA is insolvent is as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s creditor subrogation claim against the Defendant and the need for preservation is recognized.

(ii) the existence of subrogation claims

According to the above facts of recognition, when a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's obligation repaid his/her obligation, he/she has the right to demand reimbursement against the debtor pursuant to Article 341 of the Civil Act, which shall apply mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 370 of the same Act, so AA has the right to claim reimbursement against the debtor.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Defendant, as a creditor of AA, has the obligation to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from January 9, 2014 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the claim of this case and the application for modification of the cause of this case sought by the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff seeking reimbursement on behalf of the Plaintiff as a creditor of the Plaintiff. The conclusion of the judgment on April 4, 200

If so, the plaintiff's primary claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining primary claim is dismissed as without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.