A. Revocation of the accord and satisfaction contract concluded on July 1, 2013 between the Defendant and the headB;

B. The Defendant: (a) the registration of this Court; and (b) the ownership completed on July 26, 2013 by the recipient No. 113867.

The procedure for the cancellation registration of the transfer registration shall be implemented.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

(a) The director of the Namgu Tax Office under the Plaintiff-gu Tax Office shall undergo a tax investigation from July 10, 2013 to July 29, 2013.

On November 1, 2013, 2013, BB confirmed the under-reported return of value-added tax and general income tax, and determined and notified the global income tax and value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as “instant taxation disposition”) with the same content as the table, and the tax amount in arrears as of March 19, 2014 is the total OO(hereinafter referred to as “instant taxation claim”).

B. On July 1, 2013, the headB shall provide each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each of the real estate in this case") between the Defendant, who is the type of the property on July 1, 2013.

On July 26, 2013, the payment contract of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "payment contract of this case") was entered into, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the defendant's future.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (in the case of vegetable evidence)

written evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for revocation of fraudulent act

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

(1) According to Article 21(1)1 and 7 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the respective obligation to pay income tax and value-added tax ceases to exist without any separate act of the tax authority or the taxpayer when the taxable period expires.

As a matter of course, according to Article 5 (1) of the Income Tax Act, the taxable period of income tax is from January 1 to December 31. According to Article 5 (1) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the taxable period of value-added tax is from January 1 to June 30 for first period and from July 1 to December 31 for second period under Article 5 (1) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

If so, July 1, 2013, at the time of the accord and satisfaction contract of this case, the period from 2008 to 2010

Since income tax and value-added tax claim have already been established, the taxation claim in this case is the preserved claim in this case.

See Judgment on the Defendant’s argument

The defendant filed a tax appeal against the tax disposition in this case, and as a result, it can be determined that there is no preserved claim in this case's revocation lawsuit.

Therefore, this case asserts that it should be taken into account.

As long as a taxation disposition cannot be deemed to be null and void as it is, even if there are illegal grounds for revocation of the taxation disposition, such taxation disposition shall be valid until it is lawfully revoked by the fairness of the administrative act or the executory power. Thus, in the civil procedure, the effect of such taxation disposition shall be valid

It cannot be denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da20179, Aug. 20, 199). In order to make an administrative disposition null and void as a matter of course, not only the illegality of the disposition, but also the defect is important and clear. Here, obvious defect means that the administrative disposition itself itself has a defect (in an external form) clearly revealed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da26690, Oct. 22, 199).

However, on November 1, 2013, the director of the Namgu District Tax Office viewed the fact that the head of the tax office rendered the instant disposition to the head of the tax office, and based on the Eul evidence No. 9, the head of the tax office dissatisfied with the instant disposition.

Even though a tax claim was filed on January 13, 2014, the taxation claim in the instant case is still preserved claim in the instant lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act, there is no evidence that there is a significant defect in the instant taxation disposition, and it is insufficient to recognize that there is a apparent defect in the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 8 and 10.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

(i) Where the obligor’s property is insufficient to fully repay the obligor’s obligation, if the obligor provides it to any of the specified creditors as payment in substitutes or as security, barring special circumstances.

This would directly harm the interests of other creditors, which is a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, and even if the property offered as payment in kind or as a security is not a debtor's property, or its value falls short of the debtor's claim amount (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da18218, Jul. 12, 2007).

According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 1, and 2, it is recognized that Eul did not own active property except that it owned each of the real estate of this case equivalent to the market price at the time of the payment contract of this case. On the other hand, as a passive property, it is recognized that the plaintiff used the plaintiff as a passive property, the plaintiff had a debt equivalent to the total amount of OOO Won for OO, leapCC, D Saemaul Depository, O00 won + O000 won for the defendant, OO00 won, 2, and 3 real estate, and O00 won.

According to the above facts, the headB at the time of the payment contract of this case was already in excess of the active property and was already in excess of the debt. Thus, the benefit of other creditors, barring any special circumstance, to the effect that BB entered into the payment contract of this case with one of the creditors, one of the obligees.

that constitutes a fraudulent act under the subsection (1) of this section.

In addition, value-added tax and value-added tax for the taxable period from 2008 to 2010 by the PartyB itself;

Since the income tax was underreported and thereafter entered into the instant payment contract with the Defendant, then the comprehensive income tax was under way.

It is also presumed that the will of BB is recognized, and the defendant's bad faith is also presumed.

See Judgment on the Defendant’s argument

㈎ 피고는 이 사건 대물변제계약을 실제로 체결한 날짜는 2013. 6. 30.이고, 장BB이세무조사를 실시한다는 통보를 실제로 받은 것은 2013. 7. 말경이므로, 장BB이세무조사를 받게 될 것임을 알기 전에 이 사건 대물변제계약을 체결한 것이어서 사해

Although it is alleged that it does not constitute an act, as long as the beneficiary provided each of the real estate of this case to a specific creditor in excess of debt, the relationship with the other creditors.

It constitutes a fraudulent act, and BB will be subject to future tax investigation at the time of the payment contract in this case.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit, since it does not affect the determination of whether the payment contract in this case was a fraudulent act even though it was unaware of it.

㈏ 피고는 이 사건 대물변제계약 이전에 이 사건 1부동산에 관하여는 그 가액을

Since the senior mortgage has already been established, the act of disposing of the real estate of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act.

However, according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 9 and the whole pleadings, this case No. 1

On June 26, 2008, the transfer of the accord and satisfaction contract of this case with respect to land among the real estate, the first priority right to collateral security, which consists of the mortgageed Saemaul Depository, the maximum debt amount, and the OOO of the maximum debt amount, shall be

On September 13, 2010, the second priority mortgage was established with regard to the whole amount of the secured debt, which is a mortgagee of the right to collateral security (CC and the maximum debt amount) as of September 13, 2010. At the time of the payment contract in accord with this case, the actual amount of the secured debt against the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (right to collateral security) is recognized as an OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O0

㈐ 피고는 장BB에 대하여 2013. 6. 30. 현재 OOO원의 채권을 가지고 있었는데, 이사건 각 부동산에 설정된 근저당채무 및 이 사건 1, 3부동산의 임차인들에 대한임대차보증금반환채무를 인수하는 조건으로 이 사건 대물변제계약을 체결하였고,실제로 피고가 이 사건 각 부동산에 관한 소유권이전등기를 마친 후 지방세 및근저당채무의 이자를 납부하고, 임차인들에 대하여도 임대차보증금반환의무를이행하는 등 소유자로서의 권리과 의무를 행사하였는바, 피고는 이 사건 각부동산을 정당하게 이전받은 선의의 수익자라고 주장한다.

However, even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant cannot be seen as the Defendant’s good faith, considering the following: (a) the Defendant entered into the instant payment contract with a priority repayment of his own loan claims; and (b) the ownership of each real estate of this case was transferred; and (c) the Defendant, who is the offender of the Chapter BB, appears to have been aware of the property

The defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.

(c) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Therefore, the payment contract of this case must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the revocation of a fraudulent act

As a result, the defendant, who is a beneficiary of restitution, has a duty to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on July 26, 2013 with respect to each of the real estate in this case, to the head of BB.

3. Conclusion

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