B. The Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on January 5, 2010 by the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 184 with respect to the 1/2 shares of the real estate described in the above AB among the real estate described in the above paragraph (a).

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. A. On August 30, 2006, AB notified the CCC Co., Ltd. of 160 OB of 160 land and buildings on its ground (hereinafter “instant transfer”), and received additional OO's transfer value on October 30 of the same year by reporting the transfer value to OO's KRW 30 and underreporting the said transfer income tax. On December 1, 201, the Plaintiff notified on 30 OB of the said under-reported transfer income tax (hereinafter “instant transfer income tax”). However, AB did not pay the said notified tax by the due date, and on March 3, 2013, 201, the Plaintiff received 10OB’s share in the instant real estate under the name of 30OB, 201, 201, 30OB and 14,000,000,000 won and 14,000,000 won for each of the instant real estate gift.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) the existence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act 1) the existence of the preserved claim

A) Although it is necessary to say that a claim can be protected by the obligee's right of revocation was, in principle, arising prior to the act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act was conducted, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of the claim at the time of the fraudulent act, and there is high probability as to the fact that the claim is established in the near future. In fact, where a claim has been established as a result of realizing the possibility in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation. Such legal principle applies to tax claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001; 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007). Meanwhile, income tax on the transfer margin of assets is a tax for which a preliminary return is made, and the amount that serves as the tax base of Article 21(2)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, etc. is abstractly established as of the last day of the month (see, Supreme Court Decision 198Nu.

B) Regarding the instant case, as of August 31, 2006, the date on which the duty to pay the instant taxation claim was established, the abstract tax liability was established on December 31, 2009 of the instant donation contract, and BB had the background of the additional decision and notice of payment was underreporting the transfer income tax. Since it can be sufficiently anticipated that the taxpayer would be liable to pay the additional tax if he subsequently underreporting, it is highly probable that there was a high probability that there would be a tax claim based on the instant tax claim in the near future. Accordingly, since the Plaintiff determined and notified the transfer income tax to B on December 31, 201 by determining and notifying the transfer income tax to B as the due date for payment on December 31, 201, the instant tax claim in this case becomes a preserved claim for the obligee’s right to revoke.

C) Meanwhile, the amount of the obligee’s right of revocation includes the interest or delay damages incurred by the date of the closing of argument at the court of fact-finding after the fraudulent act. The additional charges prescribed in Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act are the kind of incidental tax imposed in the sense of interest on the unpaid portion in the event national taxes are not paid by the due date. As long as the tax claim is recognized as the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation, the amount of the tax claim includes the additional charges incurred after the fraudulent act and the time of the closing of argument at the court of fact-finding (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007). As such, the additional charges arising from the delinquency in the pertinent preserved claim

D) As to this, the Defendant asserted that the price received by AB from the transfer of this case is only OB won, and that the additional price received is not OB’s transfer. Thus, the Plaintiff’s disposition of transfer income tax in this case premised on this premise is unlawful and invalid. Thus, even if there are any unlawful grounds that can revoke the disposition, the administrative disposition is valid until it is lawfully revoked by the process of administrative act or the executory power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da20179, Aug. 20, 199). Thus, the effect of the disposition in civil procedure cannot be denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da20179, Aug. 20, 199). Thus, in order to invalidate the administrative disposition as a matter of course, it is important and clear that the above disposition was unlawful, and that the apparent defect in this case is clearly revealed in the form of the administrative disposition itself (other than OB). Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above disposition of transfer income tax in this case is unlawful.

E) Ultimately, the total amount of the instant taxation claims is the amount of the preserved claim against the Plaintiff’s AB.

(ii)the intent to commit fraudulent acts and to commit fraud;

A) In light of the following, where a debtor’s act of reducing liability property causes or deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors, whether such act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation shall be determined based on whether the act can ultimately be seen as an act detrimental to general creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da2718, Sept. 30, 2010; 2007Da2718, Sept. 30, 201). Whether it constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation should be determined based on a comprehensive consideration of the following: (a) the proportion of the subject matter of the act in question to the obligor’s entire responsible property; (b) the degree of insolvency; (c) the justification and means of economic purpose of the juristic act; (d) the reasonableness of the pertinent act, which is the economic purpose of the juristic act; (e) the reasonableness of the act; and (e) the degree of the party’s awareness of the shortage of common security between the obligor and the beneficiary; and (e) whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation.

(B) Comprehensively taking account of the following facts: ① OB was sold to OE on June 1, 201, at the time of the instant donation contract with 30 m2 OE 1,076 m2 around December 17, 2009: (a) there was no evidence to acknowledge that the above forest was sold to 20OE 1; (b) there was no 10 OE 20 m200 m200 m234 m24 m26 m20; (c) there was no evidence to acknowledge that there was an obligation of 1OE m20 m20 m20 m200 m20 m234 m20 m24 m24 m20 m20 m200 m2.

In full view of the above facts, since the mortgage was already established on each land of this case, it is difficult to view the part as the obligor's active property for general creditors because it cannot be seen as the obligor's responsible property for the general creditors (in this case, there is no evidence to know the value of each land of this case, but the defendant claims that the miscellaneous was repaid as substitute for the claim against B, so the value of each of the land of this case is calculated as OOO's active property at the time of the donation contract of this case. Therefore, the amount of the OO's active property at the time of the donation contract of this case was assessed as OO's claim against the OO's deposit claims, OOO's deposit claims, and OO's deposit claims, etc. at the time of the donation contract of this case, and there was a obligation of the OO's transfer income tax of this case with the OO's passive property. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the OB transferred the real property of this case to the defendant's general creditor.

C) As to this, the Defendant decided to divorce around December 2009, and accordingly, received the instant real estate as division of property and consolation money, and subsequently divorced by agreement as of March 5, 2010. Although the instant gift contract does not constitute a fraudulent act because it does not fall under the portion exceeding a significant portion as a division of property, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant gift contract was due to the division of property within a considerable extent.

Furthermore, the Defendant did not know at all that AB would be subject to the transfer income tax of this case, and thus, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff was a bona fide beneficiary, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion

(b) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Therefore, the gift contract of this case shall be revoked as a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, and the defendant shall be obliged to implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration for the real estate of this case to Ansan.

3. Conclusion

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