2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

(a) Details of tax arrears of KimB;

1) On August 5, 2010, the head of Seodaemun Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s jurisdiction imposed the value-added tax OOOO on Non-Party CCC Co., Ltd. (former trade name: DDD Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “non-party corporation”). However, the non-party corporation did not pay it by September 21, 2010, which is the due date for payment. In addition, on August 10, 2010, the head of Seodaemun Tax Office notified the KimB, the representative director of the non-party corporation, of the change in the amount of income in 2009, that the amount of income was OOOO.

2) Pursuant to Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act, the head of Seodaemun Tax Office reviewed whether KimB falls under the secondary taxpayer of the non-party corporation. The equity shares in the form of the non-party corporation are 40% of KimB, the defendant 30% of the defendant, and the KimE are 30% of the defendant, but there is no evidence that the defendant and KimE have invested and there is no fact that the defendant and KimE have exercised their authority as a shareholder, so he judged KimB as a person who actually controls the management of the non-party corporation and decided the second taxpayer. On November 25, 2010, the head of Seodaemun Tax Office notified KimB of the designation of the second tax liability for the value-added tax for the 100% portion of the non-party corporation accrued to the non-party corporation until December 25, 2010, although KimB did not pay

3) On June 1, 2012, the head of Seodaemun-gu Tax Office imposed an OOO on KimB in 2009, but KimB did not pay it by June 30, 2012, the payment deadline.

4) Accordingly, the amount of national taxes in arrears as of July 1, 2013 by KimB is as follows:

See Table 3 of the Court Decision

(b) Disposition of real estate by KimB against the defendant;

1) On January 12, 2010, KimB sold real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to a pro-friendly Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and on March 8, 2010, on which the Seoul Western District Court reported the transaction value as OOOO on the pertinent real estate as the OOOO, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the Seoul Western District Court No. 11725.

2) The instant real estate was active property at the time of the transfer of KimB ( January 12, 2010) and there was an OOO of the financial property other than the instant real estate, and the small property was a small property, which was a small property, an OOO of the maximum amount of debt of the OO Saemaul Savings Depository established on December 19, 2006 (hereinafter “OO Saemaul Savings Depository”) and a claim for the said national tax.

3) The instant right to collateral security was cancelled on April 14, 2010 on the ground of termination.

Facts without any grounds for recognition, described in Gap's 1 through 7 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's preserved claim

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, at the time of the juristic act, there has already been a legal relationship which serves as the basis of establishment of the claim, and there is high probability that the claim would have been created in the near future by such legal relationship, and in a case where a claim has been created due to its de facto in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da4352,

According to the above facts, the value-added tax and global income tax imposed on KimB are national taxes attributed to the year 2009, and the legal relationship with respect to the imposition of taxes was formed prior to the date of the instant real estate transfer ( January 12, 2010). KimB was actually controlled by the non-party corporation, so it was well aware that the non-party corporation would be designated as the secondary taxpayer of value-added tax for the non-party corporation, and there was a high probability on the imposition of value-added tax and global income tax for the year 2009 at that time. Thus, the Plaintiff’s national tax claim of this case is the preserved

B. Whether to recognize the fraudulent act by KimB

Unless there are special circumstances, the debtor's act of selling real estate, which is one of his own own property, and changing it with or transferring it to another person without compensation, becomes a fraudulent act against other creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da60891, Oct. 14, 2005). The KimB transferred the real estate of this case, which is almost the only property of his own, to the defendant, to the extent that the transfer of the real estate of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, and it is presumed that the defendant's bad faith is presumed, which must be revoked.

(c) Scope of revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

If the act of disposing of real estate on which the right to collateral security was established constitutes a fraudulent act, if the ownership of real estate itself was cancelled after the disposal of such real estate, then the revocation of the disposal act and the restoration of the ownership of the real estate itself to the debtor would be unfair because it would result in restoring to the debtor the portion which was not offered as the joint collateral of general creditors. Thus, the creditor has to claim for partial revocation of the disposal act and compensation for the value thereof within the extent that is smaller than the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount from the value of the real estate and the secured credit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da64547, Dec

According to the above facts, the purchase and sale contract of this case is terminated within the limit of the amount of the maximum debt amount, which is the amount of the plaintiff's preserved claim, is less than the amount of the maximum debt amount of the real estate value of this case deducted the amount of the OOOO, and therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following the day when the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive to the day when the payment is made.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.