B. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 256,178,166 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.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 30% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

1. To cancel, primarily, a gift agreement concluded on April 23, 2015 between the Defendant and AB within the limit of KRW 344,366,910, and to revoke, in advance, the deposit share trust agreement concluded on April 23, 2015 between the Defendant and AB within the limit of KRW 344,36,910.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 344,366,910 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

A. Tax claim against the Plaintiff’s voluntaryB

(1) On November 20, 2014, HB sold real estate located in 199-50 and 3 parcels of land (hereinafter “instant real estate”) through a voluntary auction. As to this, on August 1, 2015, HB was subject to imposition and notification of capital gains tax of KRW 397,871,560 on August 31, 2015 by the head of a tax office having the due date for payment from August 31, 2015 (Evidence 1).

(2) AB was subject to imposition and notification of KRW 9,210,225 on the value-added tax for the second quarter of 2014 from February 11, 2015 to the head of ○○ Tax Office on February 28, 2015 (Evidence A2).

1) When a creditor claims revocation on the ground that a debtor's act of paying a certain amount constitutes a fraudulent act. However, in relation to the legal evaluation of the act of payment, the assertion that the act of donation or the nominal trust agreement is different from that of an attack, which is justified in the right of revocation of the fraudulent act, does not change the subject matter of lawsuit or the claim itself. Thus, it is determined by a single claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10985, 1092, Mar. 25, 2005).

(3) On July 3, 2016, the time when the instant lawsuit was filed, HB paid only part of the imposed tax amount, and was in arrears with KRW 34,36,910 in total, including KRW 333,112,070, value-added tax 11,254,840, and KRW 11,254,840 (including each additional charge) as of July 3, 2016 (Evidence 3).

(b)transfer to the Defendant by HB;

HB received total of KRW 397,038,166 in the course of voluntary auction on the instant real estate. On April 23, 2015, HB transferred the said KRW 397,038,166 to one bank account under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “instant account”) that was one of its own children on April 23, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant remittance”), and the said money was referred to as “the instant remittance amount” (Evidence 4 through 9, and evidence 1) (a).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 12, Evidence No. 1 to 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Main argument

The remittance of this case constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditor such as the plaintiff, etc., since it constitutes a gift of YB to the defendant of Y and constitutes a fraudulent act, it is revoked within the limit of KRW 344,366,910, which the plaintiff holds at the time of the filing of the lawsuit of this case, and the defendant shall pay the plaintiff the above KRW 344,366,9

(2) Preliminary assertion

Even if the remittance of this case was not a donation, it was concluded with the Defendant at the time of the remittance of this case, which constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff and other general creditors, and thus, it is revoked within the limit of KRW 344,366,910, which is owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the aforementioned KRW 344,366,910 as restitution, and the delay damages therefrom.

B. Determination

(1) Occurrence of preserved claims

The fact that the Plaintiff’s taxation claim, which is the preserved claim of obligee’s right of revocation, constitutes a total of 344,366,910 claims including additional claims, does not conflict between the parties (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007).

(2) The establishment of the fraudulent act and the intention to commit the act

(A) Whether a gift contract is concluded (main assertion)

1) Relevant legal principles

With regard to the assertion that a creditor seeking revocation of a fraudulent act is a donation to a beneficiary of a debtor, where the beneficiary contests that the debtor received the payment of the money to a third party by subrogation, etc. for the obligation to be borne by the creditor, this constitutes denial of the creditor's assertion, and thus, in order to recognize the payment of the money as a fraudulent act, the fact that the act of paying the money constitutes a donation, and the burden of proof on such act is on the part of asserting a fraudulent act. In this case, in order to constitute a gift, it should be interpreted that there exists a mutual agreement between the parties as to the granting of the money transferred as such between the debtor and the beneficiary as "the case where the money is ultimately reverted to the beneficiary" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da212780, Nov. 27, 2014).

2) The portion recognized as the donation

In light of the following circumstances, the fact that HB paid KRW 397,038,166 to the instant account in the name of the Defendant, which was the ASEAN, due to the instant remittance act in insolvent, and in view of the overall purport of the entries and arguments in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 10, 12, 14, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 16, 19, and the entire purport of the pleadings, it is deemed that HB donated KRW 256,178,166 among the instant remittance amount to the Defendant.

A) The instant account was used by the Defendant, the nominal owner of which was the instant remittance.

The balance of the passbook prior to the act was KRW 102,89,294. From April 24, 2015 to May 18, 2017, the amount of the passbook was 102,89,294, and even if the Defendant’s 30-time withdrawals were excluded, the Defendant continued to use the account of this case even after the instant remittance act, such as 67 times, even if the Defendant’s 30-time withdrawals were used from April 24, 2015 to May 18, 2017, the number of the accounts was 81.40,000 won was deposited on September 30, 2016. On June 30, 2015, the amount of transactions was not smaller than 106,000,000 won, such as the withdrawal of KRW 106,00,000, etc., the Defendant also stated that the instant account was an “certified certificate of this case’s account.”

B) The Defendant asserts that HB used a total of KRW 376,624,440 as shown in Appendix 1 attached hereto among KRW 397,038,166. However, the Defendant’s assertion on KRW 235,764,440 for the following reasons is difficult.

① As to the year 1, the Defendant asserts that, with respect to the check, HB withdrawn KRW 90 million and used it for the repayment of the obligation of HB. However, the Defendant not only does it specify the obligee who received the check but also did not have any evidence to recognize that the said money was used for the repayment of the obligation of HB.

② As to Nos. 2, 6, 14, 18, 20, and 30 per annum, the Defendant asserts that, as indicated in the attached Table 2, a sum of KRW 127,469,090 from May 20, 2012 to August 25, 2015, the Defendant borrowed a total of KRW 127,469,090 from the Defendant, as indicated in the attached Table 2, the Defendant transferred the sum of KRW 70,000,000 from each of the above annual withdrawals to the account of Quaker.

However, there is not only no evidence to acknowledge the fact of borrowing from HPB claimed by the Defendant, and even if there was a fact of receiving money as alleged by the Defendant, it is likely that the Defendant and HB would have been paid for various reasons, such as living expenses, money in use, and economic support, rather than making a daily loan for more than three years, considering that the amount of money which is unlawfully changed as shown in the attached Table 2, such as the case of a father-child relationship. In addition, there is room for the Defendant to pay the money deposited from the instant account to the account of ccccccccc for raising the company’s operating funds, and in particular, it is difficult to regard it as the repayment of HB as the repayment of the money.

③ The Defendant asserts that, with respect to Nos. 3 and 9, the Plaintiff paid the said money in cash to the creditor. However, the Defendant does not specify the creditors of the B, who received the said money, and there is no evidence to support that the said money was used as a repayment of the B’s obligation.

④ While the Defendant asserts that, as regards No. 4, 13, and 22, the amount used individually by HB is or was used as gift tax or commission, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

⑤ As to Nos. 7, 8, 11, and 26, the Defendant asserted that B paid the difference with respect to real estate in which CC is the wife, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

(3) After the closing of the argument in this case, the Defendant submitted a reference document to the effect that this part of the claim is withdrawn.

C) As to KRW 20,413,726, excluding KRW 376,624,440, excluding KRW 376,624,440, Defendant’s assertion that HB had been used by HB at KRW 397,038,166, the amount of the instant remittance remains in the instant account (the balance of the instant account as of May 18, 2017 is KRW 22,596,776) and appears to have been ultimately reverted to the Defendant (the Defendant’s assertion that the said KRW 20,413,726, was not attributed to the Defendant on the premise that the instant account was concluded, on the premise that the nominal trust contract for the instant account was concluded, the fact that the instant contract for the title trust was concluded cannot be acknowledged).

D) In full view of the fact that the above 235,764,440 won deposited and deposited in the instant account after the instant remittance act was not presented to the Defendant, and that the above 20,413,726 won appears to have been ultimately reverted to the Defendant, and that the Defendant and the HaB had sufficient motive to donate the money to the Defendant in light of the father-and-child relationship, and that the Defendant is also able to use the amount of money in the instant account at any time since the right to use the instant account was also available to the Defendant, it is deemed that the HaB agreed to vest in the instant account to vest in the Defendant (235,764,40 won + 20,413,726 won).

3) The portion not recognized as a donation

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was donated with a total of KRW 140,860,00 in the sum of the amounts indicated in attached Table 1 Nos. 5, 10,12, 15 through 17, 19, 21, 23 through 25, and 27 through 29, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

A) As to 5, 21, 23, 24, 27 through 29 annually, the Defendant asserts that HB paid 70,000 won from the instant account to the account in the name of CC. Since HB is in a marital relationship with thisCC and has a duty to support between the spouse, and jointly bears the expenses necessary for the marital life of the couple (see Article 974 subparagraph 1, Article 833 of the Civil Act), each of the said money is likely to have been paid for the performance of the obligation to support or the burden of living expenses by HB. From February 25, 2016, GB transferred 70,000 won from the instant account to the account of CC by June 17, 2016 (Evidence 6) to the account of 7700,000 won from the date of this case’s account to the account of this case’s account, but it appears that the former 290,000 won was fully transferred to the account of this case’s account.

B) Since each money set forth in No. 10, 12 was deposited into an account under the name of HB, it is difficult to readily conclude that HB had an intention to vest each of the said money in a final return to the Defendant.

C) As to No. 15 to 17, 19, and 25 annually, the Defendant asserts that, as to the rent, rent, and fees for licensed real estate agents of officetels in which the Borrower resides, the Defendant used it as a rental deposit, rent, and real estate agent fee.

On August 21, 2015, between the Defendant and MaDD, the term of lease was set as KRW 70 million until August 31, 2016, with respect to Fym 217, an officetel 1309-1 located in the said officetel, and the lease was concluded by the Defendant with a fixed date of September 9, 2015 (Evidence 4). However, the Defendant did not reside in the said officetel at the time and was residing in another residence without the transfer of resident registration (see subparagraph 14) and appears to have obtained the fixed date while residing in the said officetel. However, as the lessee bears a large amount of debt, the Defendant appears to have obtained the fixed date, not B in the future, at risk of returning lease deposit claims.

In light of this, on August 21, 2015 and September 1, 2015, when the above lease contract was concluded, the total of KRW 70,00,000 transferred from the account of this case to the lessor Edddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

(B) Whether the title trust agreement of deposit holders is concluded (preliminary assertion)

In light of the fact that the Defendant continued to engage in his deposit transactions using the instant account regardless of BB even after the instant remittance, and the fact that a considerable portion of the amount of the instant remittance was donated to the Defendant, it is difficult to recognize that the instant account was concluded between the Defendant and B with respect to the instant account.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion based on this premise.

(C) Sub-decisions

Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant and B entered into a gift contract with respect to KRW 256,178,166 on April 23, 2015. This constitutes a fraudulent act as it harms the common security of general creditors, and it is presumed that the Defendant, a beneficiary, was guilty.

(3) Determination as to the defendant's bona fide defense

The Defendant asserted that he was unaware of the fact that the HB’s donation would prejudice the Plaintiff, a creditor. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant stated that HB had been aware of the financial difficulties at the time of the instant remittance, and that it would have been aware of the financial standing of HBB’s insolvency, and that the right to use the instant account was also the Defendant, even after the instant remittance, and thus, it appears that the Defendant would have been well aware of the instant remittance. Accordingly, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s bona fide defense.

(4) Revocation and reinstatement;

Therefore, the contract of donation between the Defendant and the HB on April 23, 2015 with respect to KRW 256,178,166 shall be revoked. It shall be restored to its original state, and the Defendant shall be obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.