2. The defendant shall pay 00% interest per annum to the plaintiff at the rate of 5% from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The gift contract with ○○○○○, among the money listed in the attached Table 1 list concluded between the order 2 and the defendant AA and B, shall be revoked within the scope of ○○○.

A. The defendant and BB are marital relations.

B. On May 28, 2012, BB sold the land of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, e.g., F, on which May 28, 2012 had been registered for transfer of ownership on the said land as the receipt No. 30025 on July 31, 2012. BB and the Defendant sold one half of the above SongD, EE, and EF on the same ○○○○ and one parcel of land on which the said ○○○○ and EF had been registered for transfer of ownership on the said land (hereinafter referred to as “instant land and building”) and completed each share transfer registration on July 31, 2012 by the same registry office (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”).

C. BB and the Defendant on June 18, 2012 sold 1/2 of each share of 00 ○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong and 00 ○○○-dong ○○○○-dong, respectively, to the public sector, and filed a registration of transfer of each share on July 27, 2012 with the Busan District Court (hereinafter “2 real estate in this case”) as the receipt of each share on July 27, 2012.

D. The sales price of the instant real estate No. 1 is KRW 00,000, and the sales price of the instant real estate No. 2 was KRW 00,000. The Defendant deducted the buyer’s obligation on real estate, such as approximately KRW 00,000, and received KRW 00 from May 30, 2012 to July 31, 2012, as indicated below, with the sales price of the instant real estate No. 1 and 2 from May 30, 2012 to July 31, 2012.

E. Meanwhile, as seen above, BB sold real estate Nos. 1 and 2, and reported capital gains tax. The head of ○○○○ Tax Office imposed and notified capital gains tax on December 10, 2012 and ○○○○○○○○ on March 25, 2013, and as of September 30, 2014, BB’s arrears as of September 30, 2014, when the instant lawsuit was filed, as indicated below (hereinafter “instant tax claim”).

Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4, and 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

(1) In principle, a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation is required to be constituted 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 the near future, where a claim has been established as a result of realizing it in the near future, the claim may also be subject to the obligee’s right of revocation. This legal principle also applies to a tax claim. As such, even if there was no specific disposition at the time of the fraudulent act, there was a basic legal relationship as to the occurrence of a tax claim, even though there was no specific disposition at the time of the fraudulent act, and where a tax claim has been established specifically through a series of procedures under the circumstances where it is highly probable to establish a claim in the near future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001; 200Da62731, Jun. 29, 2007).

(2) Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the fact that the instant case had been registered as a share transfer on July 31, 2012 and July 27, 2012 on the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of the instant case was established after May 30, 2012, on which the Defendant began to receive the purchase price of the instant real estate No. 1 and 2. However, at that time, the instant tax claim was already concluded a sales contract on the instant real estate No. 1, which is the basis of the establishment of the instant tax claim (the date of the sales contract on the instant real estate No. 2 of the instant case), and entered into the documents of evidence adopted earlier, and evidence No. 3-3.

According to the facts that the Defendant and BB subscribed to purchase the instant 2 real estate from the privateG around the end of May 2012, and accordingly, it can be acknowledged that the privateG paid part of the purchase price on May 30, 2012, and purchased the instant 2 real estate. As such, it is reasonable to deem that the legal relationship, which forms the basis for establishing a tax claim on the instant 2 real estate, has already been established at the time of receiving the purchase price for the instant 1 and 2 real estate). In fact, the possibility of realization and the establishment of a tax claim has been established. As such, the amount of the additional tax imposed under Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act is the kind of incidental tax imposed as the interest on the unpaid portion if the national tax is not paid by the due date, and the amount is naturally determined by the provisions of Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67536, Jun. 29, 2007).

B. Whether the fraudulent act was established

(1) Whether the debt exceeds BB

(A) In determining whether a debtor’s excess of the debt exists, there is a high probability that the debt will be established at the time of the fraudulent act, and that the debt will be established on the basis of the existing legal relations in the near future, and where the debt is actually realized in the near future, the debt should also be included in the debtor’s small property (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da68084, Jan. 13, 201). Thus, the tax claim of this case should be included in the small property of BB to determine whether the debt exceeds the debt.

(B) The fact that the new claim of this case was based on ○○○○ is as seen earlier, and there is no evidence or data that there was active property of BB. Thus, BB was in excess of the debt from May 30, 2012 to July 31, 2012. If the debtor donated his own property to another person under excess of the debt, such act constitutes a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da57320, May 12, 1998; 2006Da11494, May 11, 2006).

(2) Whether the donation is a gift

(A) In a case where a creditor seeking revocation of a fraudulent act asserts that an act of payment of money to a beneficiary is a gift by the debtor, the fact that the act of payment of money constitutes a gift must be proved. The burden of proof is on the part of asserting a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da28686, May 31, 2007). In this context, in order to constitute a gift, the act of payment of money must be objectively and objectively be interpreted as having reached an agreement between the parties on the transfer of money to a beneficiary ultimately without compensation between the debtor and the beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012).

(B) Based on the above legal principles, the following facts can be acknowledged according to the evidence adopted earlier, Gap evidence No. 6 (including paper numbers), and Eul evidence No. 2.

(1) BB and the defendant are in marital relations as seen earlier.

② The sales price of the instant real estate Nos. 1 and 2 was fully deposited into the Defendant’s account; BB, among the instant real estate No. 1, was the owner of the land, the right holder of 1/2 of the building, and the right holder of 1/2 of the instant real estate No. 2, but there was no purchase price paid from the Defendant.

③ BB and the Defendant submitted explanatory materials as to the place of use of the purchase price of real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of this case to the director of ○○○ Regional Tax Office, and the head of ○○ Regional Tax Office examined this and acknowledged that the Defendant repaid KRW 00,000,000 in total of the purchase price of real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of this case as indicated in

④ The Defendant purchased part of the purchase price of the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of the instant case, or used them to acquire individual land.

⑤ The Defendant, while selling the instant real estate Nos. 1 and 2, paid the full amount of capital gains tax imposed on him, but did not pay the capital gains tax imposed on the Plaintiff

(C) According to the above facts, the following circumstances can be inferred.

The land, among the real estate No. 1 of this case, was owned jointly by BB and the real estate No. 2 of this case, and owned jointly by BB and the Defendant, respectively. As such, ○○○ and ○○○○○○, which constitute at least half of the total purchase price of the real estate No. 1 and 2 of this case, shall be deemed as the ownership of BB.

(B) The defendant paid the BB's debt, such as the above (3). Thus, the purchase price of BB remains ○○○○.

(D) In light of the aforementioned facts and all other circumstances, it is reasonable to view that BB had an intention to sell real estate in this case and to vest the remainder of BB’s share in the purchase price that the Defendant received from May 30, 2012 to July 31, 2012, in a final and conclusive manner, in the Defendant’s intention to transfer to the Defendant the Defendant the remainder of BB’s share in the purchase price. In other words, it is reasonable to view that BB, from May 30, 2012 to July 31, 2012, without having taken the procedure of directly receiving the purchase price from the buyer, transferred the remainder of BB’s share in the purchase price to the Defendant from May 30, 2012 to July 31, 2012, the remainder of BB’s share in the purchase price that the Defendant received from the buyer during the contract should be excluded from the remainder of BB’s share in the purchase price to July 31, 2012.

(3) The existence of such intention

In light of the background leading up to the donation of money by BB to the Defendant, the relationship between BB and the Defendant, etc., the intent of the BB may be recognized, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary.

(c) Cancellation and reinstatement of donation contracts;

BB and the Defendant’s contract on the gift of ○○○○○○○○, which was entered into between May 30, 2012 and July 31, 2012, should be revoked as a fraudulent act within the tax claim of this case corresponding to the secured claim, and the amount of the secured claim. Accordingly, the Defendant, the beneficiary, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as provided by the Civil Act from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.