2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The contract of donation concluded on August 3, 2017 between BB and Defendant AB on the real estate listed in the separate sheet was revoked. Defendant AA shall be revoked to BB within the limit of KRW 150,00,000 on the gift contract concluded on November 27, 2017 between BB and Defendant CCC, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and with respect to the registration of original state branch branch court in Chuncheon District Court in relation to the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and with respect to the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on August 3, 2017 as receipt No. 4193.

A. On August 2, 2017, BB entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff’s tax claim against BB and filed a transfer income tax report on August 25, 2017 with EE on the content that the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 3,430,000 square meters of land and KRW 964.62 square meters of building located in ○○○○ △△-dong, △△△-dong, △△△△-dong, 73-10 (hereinafter “instant transferred real estate”) to EE, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with EE on August 4, 2017. However, BB did not pay approximately KRW 160,00,000,000 as of December 8, 2017, the unpaid transfer income tax of BB as of the date of the instant lawsuit, including the payment of capital gains tax equivalent to KRW 236,2364,250 (hereinafter “tax claim”).

B. On August 3, 2017, BB made the registration of ownership transfer for Defendant AB’s real estate donation to Defendant AB on the ground of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on August 3, 2017, Defendant AB completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day as that of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate donation”).

C. BB’s deposit transfer to Defendant CCC on November 27, 2017: (a) deposited KRW 274,826,300 with the purchase and sale balance of the transferred real estate as EE on November 29, 2017; and (b) transferred KRW 150,000,000 to Defendant CCC account, the mother of Defendant AAA, as the buyer of the transferred real estate (hereinafter “transfer of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant taxation claim is a preserved claim and the instant real estate donation and deposit transfer act against the Defendants of BB is a series of fraudulent acts that caused insolvent by reducing the liability property of BB, and accordingly, sought the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration and the return of the amount equivalent to the value of the donation by restitution.

First of all, Defendant AA asserts that the gift of this case to Defendant AA and the transfer of the deposit of this case to Defendant CCC are different from the other party. In light of the circumstances that more than three months have passed since the date of the disposition, it cannot be deemed a series of fraudulent acts, and that the gift of this case did not cause BB to become insolvent due to the gift of this case, it is not a fraudulent act.

However, the Plaintiff’s relationship with the Plaintiff and the Defendants cannot be deemed as a series of fraudulent acts. Furthermore, if the purport of Gap evidence No. 4-1, No. 3-2, and No. 3-1, and No. 2 is added to the entire purport of each of the statements and arguments, BB at the time of the instant real estate donation to EE, in addition to deposits equivalent to KRW 3,40,000,000,000, which were paid as the purchase price of the instant transferred real estate, due to the intermediate payment and balance claim amounting to KRW 600,000,000,000 and KRW 1,90,000,000,000, which are expected to be imposed on the Defendants of BB, the instant real estate donation is difficult to be deemed as a speculative act. Therefore, the instant real estate donation act is difficult to deem as a speculative act.

Next, Defendant CCC asserts that the transfer of deposits in this case is not a speculative act as the performance of existing obligations.

According to the evidence No. 4, Defendant CCC’s remittance of KRW 220,000 to BB on April 14, 2017 and May 12, 2017, Defendant CCC is acknowledged. Thus, it is probable to regard the transfer of the instant deposit as repayment of the borrowed amount. Furthermore, even if the transfer of the instant deposit is a donation and repayment, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the transfer of the instant deposit was made with intent to harm the Plaintiff, etc. by collusion between BB and Defendant CCC. Thus, it is difficult to view the instant transfer of deposit as a fraudulent act.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case premised on the premise that the act of donation and deposit transfer to the Defendants is a fraudulent act is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit.