2. The defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on the real estate in paragraph (1) to the OO for restitution due to the revocation of fraudulent act.

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

Cheong-gu Office

"The claim(s) of the same kind as the disposition(s) is written as " July 11, 2012." However, in full view of the reasons for the claim, it is obvious that it is a clerical error in the ' July 10, 2012.', and the reasons are stated as "the reasons for the claim."

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Tax claims against the plaintiff'sOO

(1) On March 26, 2012, OO sold Written 1,640,000 square meters of land for 543-8 m2 and 1537.0 m2 of land for 1537.5 m2 and its ground building 90.0 m2 (hereinafter “OO”) to W. In filing a voluntary report on capital gains tax, the OO filed an excessive report on the acquisition value of the same real estate as of July 16, 199 and filed an excessive report on the acquisition value of the same real estate as KRW 980,037,656.

(2) On August 10, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the OO of the payment of KRW 146,435,532 of the capital gains tax on safe real estate upon the due date for payment on August 31, 2012. After verifying the OO’s report on excessive acquisition value, the Plaintiff confirmed the OO’s report on excessive acquisition value, and the deadline for payment on July 2, 2013 to the OO on July 31, 2013.

Along with the payment of KRW 55,379,830 in addition to the capital gains tax, it was not paid (hereinafter referred to as "the capital gains tax of this case").

(3) In addition, OO did not return and pay value-added tax (hereinafter “value-added tax”) from January 1, 2012 to April 2, 2012, and the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 1,386,820 as of July 1, 2012, and the Plaintiff did not pay part of the payment due date, which was determined as of July 31, 2012. As of March 2014, the amount of delinquent taxes that the Plaintiff held against OO as of March 2014, is KRW 24,167,850 in total, including the amount of delinquent taxes, as stated in the following column.

(b) A disposition of real estate by an OO;

"OOO는 2012. 7. 10. 동생인 피고에게 EE시 QQQ 168-9 답 496㎡(이하 '이사건 부동산'이라 한다)을 매매대금 7,000만 원에 매도(이하이 사건 매매계약'이라 한다)하였고, 창원지방법원 EE지원 2012. 7. 11. 접수 제18445호로 피고에게 소유권이전등기를 경료해 주었다.",다. 이 사건 매매계약 당시 OOO의 소극재산이 적극재산을 초과하고 있었다.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1 (including various numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. The defendant's assertion

On April 5, 201, 201, the Plaintiff completed the registration of seizure on the instant real estate on the grounds of default of value-added tax, and thereafter, OO paid the value-added tax on July 10, 201, and the registration of seizure was cancelled on July 11, 2012, and at the competent tax office, the Plaintiff reported the instant transaction to the competent tax office. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was aware that the instant sales contract constituted a fraudulent act around that time. However, the instant lawsuit was filed on May 7, 2014, which was after the lapse of the exclusion period of one year thereafter, and thus unlawful.

B. Determination

In the exercise of the 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 the 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 due to the fact that such a juristic act constitutes an act detrimental to the creditor, it is necessary to inform the debtor of the fact that he/she had an intention to harm the debtor. Furthermore, it is not presumed that the creditor was aware of the objective fact of the fraudulent act, and the burden of proof as to the limitation period has been borne by the other party to the creditor revocation lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da5855, Apr. 26, 2013).

With respect to this case, as the health team and OOO failed to pay value-added tax (excluding the value-added tax in this case), the Plaintiff completed the registration of seizure on April 5, 201, the fact that OO paid the delinquent value-added tax, which was the cause of the registration of seizure, and the registration of seizure was cancelled on July 11, 2012, the instant sales contract was reported on July 10, 2012, and the fact that the Defendant paid acquisition tax is recognized. However, the above fact alone is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff was merely aware of the fact that the instant sales contract was constituted fraudulent act, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.Therefore, the Defendant’s defense of safety is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a) Occurrence of right to revoke a fraudulent act;

(1) Formation of preserved claims

In principle, a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation should have arisen before an obligor performs a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. However, in a case where, at the time of a juristic act, there is a high probability that the legal relationship, which is the basis of the establishment of a claim, has already been established at the time of the juristic act, and that the claim would have been created by the near future legal relationship, and where a claim has been created by the realization of a claim in the near future, such claim may also become a preserved claim by the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da64792, Jan. 12, 201). Such legal principle shall also apply to a claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court

As seen earlier, the fact that the Health Center and OOO transferred the same real estate on March 26, 2012 as to the instant case. As such, on May 30, 2012, the liability to pay capital gains tax was established abstractly, and there was a basic legal relationship as to the occurrence of the instant capital gains tax claim, and the OOO reported excessive acquisition value by filing a voluntary report on capital gains tax on the same real estate, and thereafter notified the Plaintiff’s payment of additional capital gains tax due to the Plaintiff’s investigation, as seen earlier, it shall be deemed that there was a high probability as to the fact that the instant capital gains tax claim against OOO was established in the near future around July 12, 2012, which was the date of the conclusion of the instant sales contract. Since it was probable after the date of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff’s above capital gains tax claim against OOO may become a preserved claim against the Defendant.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s claim of value-added tax against OO was already notified on July 1, 2012 and was incurred at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, and thus, it can also become a preserved claim.

(2) Whether the fraudulent act was constituted

It is presumed that OOO, which was in excess of debt, entered into a sales contract on the instant real estate, which is the only real estate between the defendant and his own partner, constitutes a fraudulent act that causes the lack of joint security of other creditors, including the plaintiff, and constitutes a fraudulent act that causes damage to the plaintiff, who is the creditor, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed to have been committed by OOO's intention

(3) Determination as to the defendant's bona fide defense

㈎ 피고의 주장

The instant sales contract is a normal transaction made by paying a purchase price of KRW 70 million to the Defendant, and thus, is a bona fide beneficiary. As such, the Defendant was unaware that it would prejudice the creditors at the time, the details of the payment of the purchase price are as follows. Of KRW 70 million, KRW 39 million was determined to substitute for the payment of KRW 14 million for the Defendant’s succession to the collateral security obligations of AA and EE Fisheries Cooperatives. The remainder of KRW 31 million was KRW 6 million among the remainder of KRW 31 million, KRW 75 million, KRW 23.5 million, KRW 35 million among the retirement claims of the Defendant’s average wage of KRW 25 million 8 million x KRW 30 million among the retirement claims of KRW 30 million 4 million x 20 million 5 million x 4 million 5 million among the retirement claims of the Defendant’s retirement allowances of KRW 7.5 million O x 2006 x 3 million 4 million 5 million x 2 million 5 million x 3 million 5 million months.

㈏ 판단

According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 evidence, it is recognized that the Defendant acquired the collateral obligation of the EE Fisheries Cooperative on Aug. 2, 2012, the fact that the collateral contract with the name of AA was terminated on Jul. 10, 2012, the Defendant’s passbook operated by the OOO on July 10, 2012, the fact that the amount of KRW 23.5 million was remitted as the sum of KRW 7.5 million on Jul. 13, 2012, and KRW 23.5 million on Aug. 28, 2012.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to reverse the defendant's bad faith presumption merely by the above-mentioned facts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the defendant's good faith. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.

① Even based on the Defendant’s assertion, it is difficult to deem that the OO made a transfer registration of ownership on the instant real estate under the condition that only six million won of the down payment was paid.

② The amount of KRW 6 million as of July 10, 2012, which was remitted to OO in the Defendant passbook, was KRW 7.5 million as of July 10, 2012, KRW 7.5 million as of July 13, 2012, and KRW 10 million as of August 28, 2012, all of which was deposited by the Defendant and OOO’s mother into the Defendant’s passbook, is merely the money remitted by the Defendant to BB as it is.

③ It is doubtful whether a person who was transferred by the Defendant to a passbook of an OO is actually paid as the purchase price as different from the payment date specified in the sales contract.

④ lack of evidence to prove that the Defendant actually held the retirement allowance claim amounting to KRW 20,400,000 against OO, and there is also lack of evidence to prove that the Defendant actually paid and cancelled the retirement allowance claim amounting to KRW 25,000,000, which is the secured debt of the right to collateral security.

⑤ The Defendant is a partner of the OO, and it is difficult to find a special motive for the Defendant to purchase the instant real estate.

(b) Methods of reinstatement;

Therefore, the instant sales contract concluded between the Defendant and OO ought to be revoked as a fraudulent act. On the other hand, in addition to seeking cancellation of the registration by a person who has registered ownership in his/her future or who has acquired ownership by law to restore the true title of the registration, it is also allowed to seek implementation of the registration procedure for direct transfer of ownership against the current registered titleholder. This legal doctrine may also apply to cases where a person intends to return the title of the real estate subject to cancellation from the beneficiary to the future (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da53704, Feb. 25, 2000). Accordingly, the instant sales contract is restored to the original state following cancellation as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant is obliged to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership due to restitution due to a fraudulent act.

4. Conclusion

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