2. As to the Plaintiff, Defendant AA, BB, and EE, each of the 100,000,000,000, Defendant CCC, DD each of the 110,000,00,000,000, and Defendant FF will pay to the Plaintiff each of the 154,796,950, and each of the above amounts, 5% interest per annum from the following day of this judgment to the day of full payment.

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

A. Assignment of the instant sales right by GG

GGG sold at KRW 5,00,000, approximately 00,000 Naju-si, June 26, 2013, at KRW 1,994,924,400, from June 26, 2013 to July 15, 2013, the right to sell the land at KRW 30-00,00 (hereinafter “instant right to sell”). GGG received KRW 1,994,924,400 out of the purchase price from the said company from June 26, 2013 to July 15, 2013.

B. Disposition imposing transfer tax on the Plaintiff’s GG

(1) On January 27, 2014, GG did not report and pay the transfer income tax on the instant sales right. On or around August 7, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff to pay KRW 851,479,830, including the transfer income tax, by revising the reported details of GG on August 31, 2014.

(2) As of April 11, 2016, the delinquent amount of GG is KRW 1,071,161,470, including penalty tax, etc. (hereinafter “instant tax claim”).

C. Donation to the Defendants of GG

GG on August 4, 2013, to Defendant AA, BB, and EE, each of the KRW 100,000,000,000 for Defendant CCC, and to DD, each of the KRW 110,00,000 for Defendant FF, and KRW 154,796,950 for Defendant FF (hereinafter “each of the instant gift agreements”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 12 evidence (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

At the time of each gift contract of this case, GG had been in excess of its obligation, and each gift contract of this case deepens the status of excess of its obligation due to each gift contract of this case, each of the gift contracts of this case constitutes fraudulent act. Therefore, each of the gift contracts of this case should be revoked, and the defendants are obliged to pay the amount donated by GGG and its delay damages to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendants' assertion

① The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with the lapse of one year from the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the fraudulent act of the GG, and thus, the instant lawsuit was unlawful for the exclusion period. The instant lawsuit was ② Of the proceeds received from the buyer after selling the instant sales right, the amount of KRW 1 billion remains, excluding the amount donated to the Defendants, and not only did not exceed the obligation at the time of the instant donation contract, but also did not have any intention to harm the GG. ③ The Defendants did not know that the instant donation contract would result in an excess of the obligation, and thus, constitute a bona fide beneficiary.

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. Relevant legal principles

In the exercise of the right of revocation, the "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause of revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirements of the right of revocation, that is, the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that the creditor would prejudice the creditor. Thus, it is not sufficient that the debtor merely knows that the debtor conducted a disposal act of the property, that is, the juristic act is an act detrimental to the creditor. In other words, it is necessary to inform the creditor that the creditor could not fully satisfy his claim due to the deficiency in joint security of the claim or the lack of joint security already in the deficient situation, and that the debtor had an intent 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 expiration of the exclusion period has been proved to the other party to the creditor revocation lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da61280, Jul. 4, 2006; 209Da478529, Oct. 29, 29, 2009).

B. Determination

In full view of the records of No. 3 and the fact-finding results of this court's bbbbb union, the Plaintiff requested cC Bank to provide the financial transaction information on March 12, 2015 and requested bbb union on April 8, 2015 to provide the financial transaction information and received the details of each GGG's passbook transaction on April 9, 2015.

However, since the details of passbook transactions only include the details of transfer or withdrawal of funds, it is difficult to recognize that GG made a donation of funds to the Defendants by the gift contract of this case or that GGG knew of its intention to harm, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the main defense of the Defendants is without merit.

4. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

(1) In principle, a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation requires that an act was conducted prior to the occurrence of a fraudulent act, but it is highly probable that the legal relationship has already arisen at the time of the fraudulent act, and that the claim should be 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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da76426, Feb. 23, 2012). Meanwhile, the income tax on the gains from transfer of assets is abstractly established on the last day of the month in which the amount that serves as the tax base (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu787, Mar. 23, 1993); and Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act, as a matter of course, if national taxes are not paid by the due date, the amount of national taxes imposed by the due date under Article 2607.26.

(2) In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, at the time of entering into a sales contract for the instant right, the Health Board and GGG had high probability as to the fact that the Plaintiff’s claim for transfer income tax was based on the establishment of the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax claim and the occurrence of the claim therefrom, and the liability for payment of transfer income tax was abstractly established on June 30, 2013, which is the end of the month at which the said right to sell was transferred, and thereafter, the Plaintiff notified GG to pay the said transfer income tax, etc. to GG around August 7, 2014, and the claim was established. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for transfer income tax against GG may be the preserved claim for the obligee’s right to revoke the instant gift contract against the Defendants of GG, including additional dues 219,681,640 won. In addition, according to the foregoing legal doctrine as seen earlier, the obligee’s claim for transfer income tax becomes the preserved claim of this case, including additional dues 1,071,161,470 won

B. Whether the fraudulent act was established

(1) Whether the debtor's debts are in excess

(A) In order for a debtor to become a fraudulent act, the act of disposal of the debtor's property shall cause a decrease in the debtor's whole property and in short of joint security for claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23857, Sept. 24, 2002). In other words, the debtor's small property should be more active property than active property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da69026, Apr. 27, 2001; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da47852, Oct. 29, 2009). In addition, in determining whether the debtor's debts exceed the debtor's debts, the issue of whether the debtor's debts are insolvent should be determined at the time of the fraudulent act, and where it is highly probable that the debts are established in the near future based on such legal relations, and the debtor's debts should be determined at the time of such fraudulent act including the debtor's debts.

(B) In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the above evidence, the case holding that each gift contract of this case was 982,624,400 won (affirmative 7,700,000 won in a house located in 00 Gun 00 Gun 000 Gun, 666 Gun 000 Gun 000 + 1,994,924,400 - Joint Investors HH and III - 1,000,000 - 10,000 - 10,000,000 - 10,000,000,000 debt repayment to JJ Do - 1,177,682,85 won in a loan of this case 85,70,000 won in a loan of this case 0G 205,000 won in excess of the transfer income tax due to the sale of the right to sell this case, 305,0300,00

(2) Whether the instant donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act

If a debtor donated his/her own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, such act becomes a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da11494, May 11, 2006) unless there are special circumstances, barring special circumstances, if the debtor donated his/her property to another person, such act would be deemed a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da11494, May 11, 2006). In the event that GG sells the sales right of this case, it could be sufficiently anticipated that a large amount of capital gains tax would be imposed on the sale of the instant sales right, and it has not been passed thereafter, and the donation contract of this case was made, and all of the implementation of the instant donation contract was made in the form of payment in cash, and the Defendants are children of GG,

(3) Determination as to the Defendants’ bona fide assertion

(A) Since the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, his or her responsibility is not the beneficiary

In order to escape B, the beneficiary is responsible to prove his/her good faith. In such cases, the good faith should be determined in light of logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary; (b) the details of and the background or motive for the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary; (c) whether there are no special circumstances to doubt that the terms and conditions of the act of disposal are normal and reasonable; and (d) whether there are objective materials to support the act of disposal as a normal transaction; and (e) circumstances after the act of disposal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74

(B) On the other hand, the circumstances alleged by the Defendants and the evidence presented by the Defendants alone cannot be deemed as a bona fide beneficiary, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the presumption. Rather, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence are as follows: (i) insofar as GG sells the instant sales right to KRW 5,030,00,000, the sales right of KRW 1,994,924,40, which is the amount paid to the Defendants under the instant donation agreement, are considerably large enough to view that the Defendants were to have paid KRW 674,796,950 to GG as their children; (ii) the Defendants were closely related to GGG; (iii) the total amount paid to the Defendants under the instant donation agreement, which is the amount of KRW 1,994,924,40, which is the amount paid by GGGGG to HH100,000, which is a malicious beneficiary, and (iv) the Defendants did not know that the amount was paid in cash prior to the instant donation agreement.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion is without merit.

C. Sub-decision

Ultimately, the instant gift contract against the Defendants of GG shall be revoked in entirety. The Defendants are obligated to return to the Plaintiff the money received from the GG in accordance with each of the instant gift contracts, which is restitution. The Plaintiff, Defendant AA, BB, and EE, each of which is KRW 100,000,000, Defendant CCC, and DD, each of which is KRW 110,000,000, Defendant CCC, and Defendant FF, each of which is KRW 154,796,950, and each of the said money, each of which is calculated at a rate of 5% per annum from the day following the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full repayment.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.