2. The defendant will implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the transfer of right to collateral security, which was completed as No. 64616, Dec. 9, 2009, against KimB (00, address: 000 OO-ro, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul) in the attached list 2, and 3 real estate in the attached list.

3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

4. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

5. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant.

A. Plaintiff’s claim against KimB

1) On May 1, 2009, the Plaintiff notified KimB of the total amount of KRW 0000 in global income tax, and the total amount of KRW 0000 in education tax (less than KRW 000) with respect to the non-business proceeds accrued in 2007 and 2008, but the Plaintiff did not pay it until May 31, 2009, the payment deadline for KimB.

2) The amount in arrears of KimB, including additional dues (3%) and aggravated additional dues (1.2%) on December 1, 2009, is 000 won in total, and 000 won in total, and 000 won in education tax, and 000 won in total, around April 1, 2013, which is close to the date of closing the argument in this case, around April 1, 2013, and 000 won in education tax.

B. Disposition by KimB

(1) On June 5, 2008, KimB entered into a contract for the creation of the right to collateral security with respect to each real estate listed in the separate list owned by thisCC (hereinafter in the order of 1, 2, 3 real estate, and hereinafter in the whole "each real estate of this case"), with the maximum debt amount of 000 won, and with respect to each real estate of this case, the Seoul Southern District Court, Gangnam District Court, No. 46278, Jun. 9, 2008, with respect to the real estate of this case No. 3, No. 31371, Jun. 13, 2008, and with respect to the assignment of 2, 190 and 3, the Seoul High Court, No. 2019, 2009, 3, 196, 2, 2005, 2, 3, 19, 2, 2, 3, 19, 2, 2, 2, 9, 2, 2, 3.

C. The financial status of KimB

At the time of the contract for the transfer of the right to appeal of this case, KimB, as active property of KimB, had each of the instant collateral security claims against thisCC (based on the maximum amount of claims). Petty property bears tax liability of 000 won against the Plaintiff, the obligation of 200 million won against the Defendant, and its delay damages, and KimB was in excess of its obligation.

[Ground of recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 5 through 8, and Eul evidence 8, 9, and 11 (including household numbers, and hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on this safety defense

In light of the facts that the Plaintiff had been aware of the transfer of 200, 100, 200, 200, 200, 100, 2000, 200,000,000 won, and 10,000,000 won, 20,000,000 won, 7,000,000,000 won, 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,00.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

위 인정사실에 의하면， 김B의 원고에 대한 종합소득세 및 교육세 0000원의 채무는 이 사건 각 근저당권양도계약 이전에 발생하였으므로 채권자취소권의 피보전채권이 되고， 김B는 채무초과상태에도 불구하고 피고에게 이 사건 각 근저당권 부채권을 피고에게 양도함으로써 공통담보의 재산을 감소시켰으므로， 이 사건 각 근저당권양도계약은 사해행위에 해당하고， 김B가 원고로부터 수억 원의 조세채무를 부과받은 이후에 이 사건 각 근저당권부 채권 외에는 별다른 재산이 없는 상태에서 피고에게만 적극적으로 이 사건 근저당권을 이전해 준 사정에 비추어 볼 때 김B의 사해의사 또한 인정되며， 피고의 악의는 추정된다. 이에 대하여 피고는 실제로 김B에게 2억 원을 대여하였고 이혼한 뒤 시댁 식구들과는 거의 왕래가 없어 김B의 채무초과상태에 대하여 알지 못하였다고 주장하나，사해행위취소소송에서 수익자가 사해행위임을 몰랐다는 사실은 그 수익자 자신에게 증명책임이 있는 것이고，이때 그 사해행위 당시 수익자가 선의였음을 인정할 때는 객관 적이고도 납득할 만한 증거자료 등이 뒷받침되어야 할 것이며， 채무자의 일방적인 진술이나 제3자의 추측에 불과한 진술 등에만 터 잡아 그 사해행위 당시 수익자가 선의 였다고 선뜻 단정할 수 없는바(대법원 2006. 4. 14. 선고 2006다5710 판결 등 참조)，갑 제5，17호증，을 제1 내지 5， 7 내지 9호증의 각 기재만으로는 피고가 선의의 수익자라고 단정할 수 없어 악의의 추정을 번복하기 어려우므로， 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다. 따라서 피고와 김B 사이에 이 사건 각 부동산에 관하여 2009. 12. 1. 체결한 근 저당권양도계약은 사해행위로서 취소되어야 한다.

(b) Methods of reinstatement;

1) One real estate in the instant case

In principle, restitution following the cancellation of fraudulent act shall be based on the return of the object itself, but if it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the object, it shall be based on the value compensation, and in calculating the value compensation, the value shall be assessed objectively based on the time of the conclusion of the trial proceedings regardless of the price actually received by the beneficiary from the subsequent purchaser (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da104564, Apr. 29, 2010). The evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 6 shall be comprehensively taken into account, and the purport of the whole entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 6 shall be taken into account, and the defendant shall receive 00 won for the real estate of this case (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2009Hu1913), and it shall be reasonable to view that each of the mortgages in the name of Kim and the defendant is not possible to return the dividends to the plaintiff at the rate of 00 won and the amount of dividends that the plaintiff shall be paid to the plaintiff at each of this case No.

(ii) the two cases, and three real estate;

Since it is possible to return the object itself, the defendant is obliged to implement each registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the right to collateral security transfer completed on December 9, 2009 by the Chuncheon District Court No. 64616, Dec. 9, 2009 with respect to the two and three real estate in this case.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.