2. The Defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on January 16, 2015 by receipt No. 3072, with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list, to Gangwon District Court in Chuncheon.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On April 3, 2009, the KangB sold land 6210-5, 6210-6 to KimCC on April 3, 2009, and on May 31, 2010, it made a preliminary return of capital gains tax to the head of the DD Tax Office affiliated with the Plaintiff on May 31, 2010. The Director of the DD Tax Office notified the Gangnam on December 1, 2014 that the time limit for payment shall be determined as of December 31, 2014 and the capital gains tax shall be additionally paid KRW 98,332,40,00 and the additional tax shall be KRW 13,569,790, the total amount of KRW 111,902, and KRW 190 (B) of the said capital gains tax shall not be paid until the closing of the argument in the instant case.

B. On December 31, 2014, KangB sold the purchase price of KRW 200,000,000 to KimE, which was owned by himself/herself, ○○○○○, ○○○, ○○○○, 1041, 5868 square meters, at KRW 200,000. On January 8, 2015, KimE completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on December 31, 2014.

C. On January 8, 2015, Gangwon sold to the Defendant the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) that he/she owned on January 8, 2015 at KRW 250,000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”); and on January 16, 2015, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale on January 8, 2015 to the Defendant.

D. On December 20, 2010, the Defendant took over KRW 100,000,000 from the GG Credit Cooperative. On December 20, 2010, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, which was made up of the maximum debt amount of KRW 140,000,000, the debtor KimF, and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, was completed in order to secure the above loan. On January 27, 2015, the Defendant acquired KRW 100,000,00 as a debt guaranteed by the said right to collateral security, instead of paying a part of the purchase price of the instant sales contract, and as a result, the debtor of the said right to collateral security was changed to the Defendant.

E. At the time of the instant sales contract, GangnamB’s active property was deposited in the account of the instant real estate and HH agricultural cooperative (EE transferred KRW 60,000,000 out of the purchase price of 0,000 square meters in 0,000 square meters in 0,000 square meters in 0,000 square meters in 0,000,000 won in 0,000,000 won in 0,000 won in 0,000 won, and the said money was entirely withdrawn until January 13, 2015, and was deposited in 7,383,00 won as of January 15, 2015).

F. The defendant is the opinion of the newJ, which is the stronger of the JB.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Grounds for claims;

The instant sales contract is a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is a creditor of the instant taxation claim, and thus ought to be revoked. For restitution to its original state, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on January 16, 2015 with the Chuncheon District Court’s original branch court, Chuncheon District Court’s original branch court, and the Plaintiff is obligated to implement the procedure

(b) the existence of preserved claims;

Since a taxation claim was established as of December 31, 2014, which was the due date for the payment of the instant taxation claim, there is no doubt that the instant taxation claim may become a preserved claim seeking the revocation of a fraudulent act.

C. Whether the defendant was guilty and the defendant's bad faith

1) The debtor’s act of selling real estate, the only property of which is the debtor, and replacing it with money easily consumed, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001).

2) According to the facts stated earlier, Gangwon, the obligor of the instant taxation claim, sold the instant real estate, the sole real estate, and the active property therefrom was no longer less than a small property, thereby making it more in excess of the liability. Therefore, the instant sales contract constitutes fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, which is detrimental to the Plaintiff’s interest, and is presumed to constitute a fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, the beneficiary.

3) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A) The Defendant asserts as follows: (i) on January 8, 2015, the Defendant purchased the instant real estate from B from 250,000,000 won; (ii) on January 9, 2015, 50,000 won; and (iii) on January 16, 2015, 15, KRW 150,000,000 were paid to the creditors of the instant real estate for the purpose of selling the instant real estate at the purchase and sale price, and (iv) on the grounds that there was no specific circumstance to deem that the instant real estate was sold in cash after the purchase and sale contract was concluded for the purpose of acquiring the obligations of KRW 100,00,000,000, which were assumed on GG credit; and (iv) on the grounds that there was no other reason to view that the Plaintiff had been demoted to sell the instant real estate after the purchase and sale contract was concluded for the purpose of acquiring the obligations of KRW 124,00,00,00.

B) The Defendant also asserts that he did not know that B had exceeded his obligation (i.e., the Defendant was bona fide). In a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act, the issue of whether a beneficiary was bona fide shall be determined reasonably by comprehensively taking into account the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary, the circumstances leading to the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary, the circumstances leading to the act of disposal, the existence of objective data supporting the act of disposal, and the circumstances after the act of disposal, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74621, Jul. 10, 2008). We examine the case in this case. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not have any other reason to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s claim for the amount of consolation money as 100,000 won in return for deposit with the GangwonB account or by means of interest transfer registration (i.e., the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff was not aware of the economic situation of the GangwonJ, and thus, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant did not have any other evidence.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, the sales contract concluded on January 8, 2015 with respect to the instant real estate between GangwonB and the Defendant should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant, with respect to the instant real estate, is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on January 16, 2015 with respect to the Gangwon District Court’s original Branch Branch Branch of Chuncheon District Court, which was completed on January 16, 2015.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted with due reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.