2...

A. D is the mother of the Defendants, a South-North branch.

B. D sold 10,261 square meters prior to E, E (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to non-F and one other on June 29, 2010, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 23, 2010. Accordingly, D’s transfer income tax payable on October 31, 2010 (hereinafter “the instant transfer income tax”) was KRW 118,326,590.

C. On August 25, 2010, D entered into a contract to donate KRW 100 million to Defendant C (hereinafter “first gift contract”) and paid KRW 100 million, and entered into a contract to donate KRW 200 million to Defendant B (hereinafter “second gift contract”) on August 26, 2010 and paid KRW 200 million. On September 1, 2010, D entered into a contract to donate KRW 100 million to Defendant A (hereinafter “third gift contract”), and paid KRW 100 million.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 3 and 5's statements (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. On September 2010, when the Defendants received gift tax pursuant to each of the instant gift contracts from the Defendants, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on December 17, 2013, when one year has passed since the date of the said payment, even though the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of each of the instant gift contracts claiming that the Plaintiff was a fraudulent act. This is an illegal lawsuit filed with the limitation period.

B. In the exercise of one obligee’s right of revocation, “the date when the obligee became aware of the cause for revocation” means the date when the obligee became aware of the requirements for obligee’s right of revocation, that is, the date when the obligee became aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while being aware that the obligee would prejudice the obligee, and thus, it is simply aware that the obligor performed a disposal of the