2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 107,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day after the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. 30% of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant and JungB shall cancel the sales contract concluded on November 15, 2013 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet within the scope of KRW 157,828,640, and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 157,828,640 with 5% interest per annum from the day after the date this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

A. From January 26, 2007, JungB sold CC the real estate of 166,000,000 won and 166,000,000 won for the purchase price of 2 other parcels of land in XX. Around January 26, 2007, JungB reported that the real estate of 197 and 2 other parcels of land was sold in 60,000 won and submitted a sales contract stating such purchase price and paid capital gains tax of 29,830 won on January 26, 200

B. On November 20, 2013, the Plaintiff discovered it and sent notice of taxation on KRW 39,487,116 due to the failure to report capital gains tax, among capital gains tax accrued in 2007, the Plaintiff sent notice of taxation on KRW 130,485,027 due to the failure to report capital gains tax, and each of the above notices sent notice of taxation on KRW 130,485,027, including the under-reported reasons. On November 28, 2013 and December 27, 2013, each of the above notices reached Preliminary. On February 4, 2014, the Plaintiff did not pay the tax base of capital gains accrued in 207 to KRW 108,162,30, the amount of tax to KRW 64,896,380, the amount of tax to KRW 6496,380,000, the amount of tax to be paid plus KRW 6305,394,29,2940.30

C. As of June 24, 2015, the date of filing the instant lawsuit, the amount of delinquent capital gains tax of fixedB as of June 24, 2015 is KRW 157,828,640, including additional charges, and is KRW 165,654,840 as of November 3, 2015.

D. On December 27, 2006, JungB concluded a pre-sale agreement with regard to the real estate listed in the lowest and annexed list (hereinafter “instant housing”) on December 27, 2006, and completed the registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership under its name as the receipt No. 82110 on December 28, 2016. Based on the pre-sale agreement, Jungdong District Court of Seoul, Dong District Court completed the registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership under its name. Based on the pre-sale agreement, on February 10, 2010, purchased the instant housing as KRW 220,000,000 from the lowestD, and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership as the receipt of March 17, 2010 by the same registry office.

E. On December 10, 2009, the HE, a spouse of the Defendant, was determined and leased the instant housing at KRW 2 years from December 30, 2009, the lease deposit amount of KRW 100,000 (hereinafter “the lease of this case”), and around that time, paid the said lease deposit. After receiving the instant housing and filing a move-in report on January 8, 2010 on the move-in report on the same day, the LE, a spouse of the Defendant, had been granted the fixed date for the instant lease of this case.

F. JeongB completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the Defendant, which was based on the sale on December 31, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “sale”). The Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of Kim GGG on February 26, 2014 as the receipt No. 7497 of the same registry office (hereinafter referred to as “instant provisional registration”). The Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of KimGG on February 25, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “instant provisional registration”).

G. The sales contract between JeongB and the Defendant states that KRW 15,000,000 of the purchase price shall be paid on November 15, 2015, and the intermediate payment of KRW 100,000,000 shall be replaced by the Defendant’s spouse and the Defendant’s claim for the refund of the deposit for the deposit for the deposit against the Defendant of HE, which is his father’s father’s father, and the balance of KRW 35,000,000 shall be paid on December 30, 2013.

H. On December 30, 2013, the Defendant deposited KRW 35,000,000 into the account of JeongB.

I. Full-time property of the PartyB was KRW 42,05,155 in total on November 15, 2013, except for the instant housing, and KRW 30,521,783 in total on December 31, 2013.

(j) on January 2, 2014, JungB withdrawn all of the balance of the account in cash,******-***-*-**-**-******************-********************************************,00,00 won on January 3, 2014 and on January 10, 2014,00,000 won on January 6, 2014.

(k) The market price at the time of December 15, 2013 of the instant housing is KRW 203,00,000, and the market price at the time of June 24, 2016, which is close to the date of closing argument, is KRW 207,00,000.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 14-1, 2, and 3, the result of a request for market price appraisal of the appraiser transfer file by this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the fraudulent act is constituted;

According to the above facts, the plaintiff's transfer income tax and additional tax claim already established prior to the sale and purchase of this case may be the preserved claim against the right to cancel the fraudulent act, and the fixed BB due to the sale and purchase of this case shall be deemed to have already been in excess of his obligation only with the national tax liability against the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the act of selling the housing of this case, the only real estate of which most of the responsible property accounts for the defendant, and the act of converting the money easily used for consumption of the housing of this case, is a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances (the defendant argues that the sales and purchase contract against the defendant shall receive the purchase money to reduce the active property, so there is no change in the responsible property, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant's deposit claim against the Jung-B was decreased rather than the transfer to the defendant's party's party's party's party, this part of the argument shall not be accepted).

On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the instant notice of payment was null and void since five years have elapsed since the exclusion period for taxation period for fixedB. However, Article 26-2(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 10405, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that the exclusion period for the right to impose national taxes, in principle, shall be five years in order to promptly determine tax relations, but it is difficult for the tax authority to discover the existence of any unlawful act, such as making it difficult for it difficult for B to find out the omission of taxation, and making it difficult for B to expect the exercise of the right to impose national taxes. Accordingly, the exclusion period for imposition of such national taxes is set 10 years to the purport that it is difficult for BB to expect the exercise of the right to impose national taxes. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s submission of a sales contract written below the actual transaction price to the Plaintiff with the intent to evade transfer income tax and the Plaintiff’s submission of the sales price in total amount of KRW 60,00,00,00.

In other words, the Defendant asserts that the payment notice of this case was erroneous and wrong (the Defendant’s 1B did not have credibility, or that the actual transaction value, which served as the basis for its tax base, was excessively high compared to the officially announced land price. However, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant could not dispute this case as long as the 1B did not object to the instant payment notice, and that the 1B did not have any intention to know that the 1B would have failed to report the transfer income tax, and that the 1B would not have any intention to know that the remaining amount would have reached the 10th anniversary of the fact that the 1B’s payment notice was made by the 10th anniversary of the fact that the 1B’s payment notice was made by the 30th anniversary of the fact that the 1B’s payment notice was made by the 10th anniversary of the fact that the 1B’s payment notice was made by the 10th anniversary of the fact that the 1B’s payment notice was made by the 10th of the 3rdB’s payment notice.

The defendant did not know that the sale of this case was prejudicial to the plaintiff, and thus the defendant acted in good faith.

In light of the circumstances as seen earlier: (a) and the fact that the sales price of this case was excessively lower than KRW 220,000,000,000, which is the acquisition price of the current market price and EB (the Defendant claimed that the Defendant and EE spent KRW 220,000,000,000,000,000,000 (the acquisition price of EB) at that time; (b) there was no materials to support the payment until the date of the closing of argument; and (c) the amount of receipt submitted as reference materials after the closing of argument is at least 35%, and the amount of receipt submitted as reference materials is at least 35%, regarding the treatment after the instant sales) and the fact that KimGGG, registered as the holder of the right to the provisional registration of this case, there was no evidence to support the fact that the assets of EB were reduced due to the sale and purchase and registration of this case, thereby making it impossible to satisfy the Plaintiff’s claims.

Therefore, the sales of this case between the EB and the Defendant should be revoked.

3. Scope of cancellation and methods of reinstatement.

In the instant transaction, KRW 100,000,000 out of the price is to be appropriated as the deposit for the instant lease, and it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant, a spouse, acquired a claim for refund of deposit for lease from the Plaintiff’s Party B, and entered into an agreement offsetting the amount of the claim for refund of deposit for lease from the instant purchase price debt. Therefore, the claim for refund of deposit for the Plaintiff’s Party B due to the instant transaction was extinguished.

However, in a case where a fraudulent act was committed with respect to a real estate which has a right to preferential reimbursement, the portion equivalent to the amount of lease guarantee in such real estate is not part of the creditors' general security, and such fraudulent act is established only within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the amount of lease guarantee from the value of the real estate. In a case where the lease which has the right to preferential reimbursement lapses due to the return, etc. of the deposit, etc., the cancellation order of a fraudulent act to restore the real estate itself to the portion which is not originally secured by other creditors, and it would result in a violation of fairness and fairness. Therefore, it is inevitable to revoke the fraudulent act and order compensation for the value thereof within the extent of

However, according to the provisions of Article 35 (1) 3 (b) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the statutory due date of the Plaintiff’s national tax claim against the fixedB cannot be seen as prior to the date on which the instant lease satisfies the requisite for counterclaim and the fixed date of the contract. Thus, the instant lease constitutes a lease with preferential right to payment in relation to the Plaintiff. Of the value of the instant house, the portion corresponding to the lease guarantee amount does not constitute the property of dueB’s liability in relation to

Of course, if the original return can be made due to the cancellation of the sale of this case because there is no other burden on the housing of this case, the lease deposit claim can be restored. However, the provisional registration of this case was completed in the name of KimG after the sale of this case, and barring special circumstances, such as where a third party acquires the right of provisional registration, etc. on an object after fraudulent act, the creditor may seek compensation for damages against the beneficiary by the method of restitution, unless there are special circumstances, such as that the beneficiary may transfer the object to the state where provisional registration, etc. is not restricted. Accordingly, the restoration of this case should be made by the method of compensation for

As seen earlier, the market price of the instant housing as of June 24, 2016 is KRW 207,00,000 as of the date of the closing of argument, and the market price as of the date of the closing of argument is confirmed as same. Here, if the amount of the instant lease guarantee which was extinguished due to the sale of the instant case is deducted, the amount of the general collateral portion of the instant housing for the Plaintiff would be KRW 107,00,000 for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s national tax claim against JeongB, a preserved bond of this case, exceeds the amount of KRW 165,654,840 as of November 3, 2015. As such, the scope of revocation is KRW 107,00,000, which is the total amount of the general collateral.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the sale of this case between the defendant and JungB shall be revoked within the scope of KRW 107,00,000, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 107,000,000 and damages for delay at the rate of KRW 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from the day following the day when the judgment became final and conclusive to the day when the payment is complete. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.