2. Defendant AA shall pay to the Plaintiff 60,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case is finalized to the day of complete payment.

3. Revocation of each gift agreement with Defendant BB and the above CCC on the money stated in the attached Table 3.

4. Defendant BB shall pay to the Plaintiff 45,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final to the day of complete payment.

5. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

6. Paragraphs 2 and 4 of this Article may be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The primary purport of the claim is as shown in the text of the claim.

Preliminary Claim 1: Revocation of each contract on the donation of KRW 20,000,000 and KRW 5,000,000 on September 16, 2012 between Defendant BB and CCC on December 14, 2011. Defendant BB pays to the Plaintiff money calculated by the rate of KRW 25,000,000 and that of KRW 5% per annum from the day following the day when the instant judgment became final to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The director of the competent tax office issued CCC a notice of payment of transfer income tax for the year 2007 and 2008, but CCC did not pay it. The amount in arrears of CCC as of June 2015, which was around the time of the instant lawsuit, reaches KRW 1,592,472,120 as shown in attached Table 1.

B. On February 29, 2008, the CCC transferred 476 square meters of the △△△△△△△△, Jung-dong, Busan Metropolitan City (around June 30, 2008, as seen earlier, the obligation to pay capital gains tax was created) and the account in the name of △△△△ or family accounts of △△△△△△, which had been managing its own funds from March of the same year (hereinafter “instant case”).

Money has been remitted to each account (hereinafter referred to as "each account").

C. Afterward, CCC had △△△△ transfer money from each of the instant accounts to the account designated by CCC whenever money is necessary.

D. As shown in attached Table 2, it was transferred from each of the accounts in the name of Defendant AA to one bank account in the name of Defendant AA (hereinafter “the first bank account in this case”) in the amount of KRW 60,000,000 (hereinafter “the first bank account in this case”) and the name of Defendant BB as shown in attached Table 3.

45,000,000 won was transferred to the national bank account (hereinafter "the second transfer account of this case") (hereinafter "the second transfer of this case").

E. In addition, from the instant transfer account on December 14, 201 to the bank account under the name of Defendant BB on December 14, 2011, KRW 20,000 was transferred to the bank account under the name of Defendant BB, and KRW 5,000,000 was transferred to the new bank account under the name of Defendant BB on September 16, 2012 (hereinafter “instant transfer 3 transfer”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 10, Eul evidence 3-1 to 3, each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the first and second transfer of this case, even though CCC knew that it would prejudice the plaintiff as a taxation right holder, it should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, and it constitutes a donation of money to the defendants.

If the first and second transfer accounts of this case are merely the borrowed name accounts of CCC and cannot be seen as a gift, the total amount of KRW 25,000,000,000, which was transferred from the first and second transfer accounts to the accounts under the name of Defendant BB, constitutes a fraudulent act as it constitutes a gift contract between CCC and Defendant BB.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The deposit account Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is the CCC opened a borrowed account under the name of the Defendants and used it as CCC. Accordingly, transfer Nos. 1 and 2 of this case does not constitute a gift to the Defendants.

In the case of the instant 3 transfer, it does not constitute a fraudulent act, as the CCC has repaid the money borrowed from Defendant BB.

3. Judgment as to the main claim

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

According to the above facts, each transfer income tax claim against CCC was already established at the time of the instant transfer act, and since the taxation claim against CCC became final and conclusive by determining and notifying the transfer income tax to CCC at that time, each tax claim against CCC can be the preserved claim against the lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant transfer Nos. 1 and 2.

B. Whether the fraudulent act was established

As to the fact that the amount transferred from each of the instant accounts to the first and second deposits account is CCC, the Defendants do not dispute. We examine whether each of the instant transfers constitutes a fraudulent act.

(1) Relevant legal principles

If a debtor donated his/her own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, such an act constitutes a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances. However, if the creditor seeking revocation of a fraudulent act denies the beneficiary’s assertion that the debtor’s monetary payment act was a donation to the beneficiary, the burden of proving that the monetary payment act constitutes a donation is on the part of the creditor claiming a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da28686, May 31, 2007).

In addition, if the debtor donated his/her property under excess of his/her obligation, there are no special circumstances.

Such an act constitutes a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da62167, May 11, 2006).

(2) Determination on the transfer of the instant case No. 1

A) Whether it can be seen as a gift

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 6 through 9, Eul evidence 3-2, the credit card price issued in the name of defendant AA is settled from the first payment account of this case. In light of the use, there is also a statement that the CCC appears to have used. However, it has been settled from the use of the usage, and the details that can be seen to have been used by the defendant AAA. As to the first payment account of this case, the defendants asserted that the CCC himself/herself used 200 million won loans from the ICC bank to the above account and used them for direct consumption. However, the above loans were consistently used from the Busan Suwon-dong, Busan-dong, 148-4 and 1100dong 11 (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case"), but all of them were asserted by the defendants under the contract between the defendant AA and the defendant 1, the defendant 219,000 won and the above loan contract of this case.

In addition, in addition to the fact that the CCC concealed property, such as transferring more than KRW 00 million to each of the instant accounts for the purpose of avoiding compulsory execution, Defendant AA knew that money was deposited in its own name in the first payment account of this case, and was aware of the details used by CCC. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant AA was jointly willing to donate and grant money to Defendant AA, which was donated the said money or deposited in the first payment account of this case from an objective point of view, to ultimately belong to the Defendant.

Therefore, the gift contract such as the entry in attached Table 2 between the CCC and the defendant was concluded.

B) Establishment of fraudulent act

Considering the property and debt status of the CCC at the time of the instant transfer, Defendant AAA’s malicious intent is also recognized when considering the fact that the debtor, and the beneficiary, appears to have been aware that the CCC’s financial status was not good as the wife of the CCC.

C) Revocation and reinstatement of fraudulent act;

Therefore, the contract of donation amounting to KRW 60,00,000 entered into between CCC and Defendant AA as shown in the attached Table 2 must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and as such, Defendant AA is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 60,000,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

(3) Determination as to the second transfer of this case

A) Whether it can be seen as a gift

According to the statement No. 3-1 of the evidence No. 3-2, as alleged by the defendant, the place where the payment was made in the form of cash automatic withdrawal machines and telephone transfer with respect to the second deposit account of this case is located in Busan Young-gu. On the other hand, considering the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence No. 11-1-4, Gap evidence No. 12-1 and Eul evidence No. 3-1, Defendant BB cannot be deemed to have been made in accordance with CCC because the plaintiff worked for 000 in the Republic of Korea located in Young-gu, Busan-gu, Busan-do at the time the transaction was made in accordance with the attached table No. 3, which is the case of defendant BB, the defendant argued that it is irrelevant to the head of Tong-gu, Busan-gu, but the above defendant's assertion that the defendant's payment was made in Busan-gu, and thus, it was contrary to the defendant's 2-B's labor income tax for the above period of time.

In light of this, the second payment account of this case was used solely by CCC; or

In light of the above, it cannot be readily concluded that there is no evidence used by Defendant BB, and furthermore, even if CCC has used part of the money deposited in the account of the second deposit in this case on its own behalf, it is reasonable to view that CCC supported by the above Defendant has used part of the above deposit with the right to dispose of deposit or remittance belonging to Defendant BB. In full view of the above, it is reasonable to view that CCC and Defendant BB have established a donation contract, namely, it is reasonable to deem that the donation contract was established.

B) Establishment of fraudulent act

Considering the property and debt status of the CCC at the time of the instant transfer, Defendant BB, as a beneficiary, was aware of the fact that CCC had an intent to harm the debtor, and even according to the Defendants’ assertion as a parent of CCC, Defendant BB was aware of the fact that CCC had made the entire property (written on April 27, 2015). Thus, Defendant BB’s bad faith, a beneficiary, is also recognized.

C) Revocation and reinstatement of fraudulent act;

Therefore, the contract of donation amounting to KRW 45,00,000 entered into between CCC and Defendant BB as shown in the attached Table 3 should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and as such, Defendant BB is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 45,000,000 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day after this judgment became final to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for all reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.