사해행위취소
1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. A sales contract concluded on May 4, 2009 between the Defendant and B.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. B sold on March 6, 2006 1,321 square meters prior to Ulsan-gun D, Ulsan-gun, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 8, 2006.
B. On July 9, 2009, the Plaintiff, on July 31, 2009, determined and notified the payment deadline for the transfer of the above land to B, and on July 31, 2009, KRW 143,004,189 for the transfer income tax reverted to the year 2006.
The amount of the capital gains tax is 234,812,850 won, including the additional dues at present.
C. On May 4, 2009, B entered into a sales contract with the Defendant as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On June 4, 2009, B completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Defendant as the receipt of the Daegu District Court North Daegu District Court’s registration office No. 28084.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 and 8, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendant, at least before July 31, 2009, knew of the fact that the instant sales contract was concluded prior to the time limit for payment of capital gains tax on B. Since the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit was filed on December 11, 2013 after one year from the said time limit, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it exceeds the exclusion period.
A lawsuit of revocation by a creditor shall be brought within one year from the date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act). In the exercise of the creditor's right of revocation, the "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor had committed a fraudulent act while being aware of the fact that the creditor had harmed the creditor. This is insufficient to simply recognize the fact that the debtor performed a disposal act of the property, and further, it is necessary to know that the debtor had known the existence of a specific fraudulent act and that the debtor had expressed an intent of deception (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102, Mar. 26, 2009). The evidence submitted by the defendant alone by the plaintiff is around