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

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. On October 25, 2006, NoB entered into a sales contract to sell the occupancy rights of 00 OOO apartment 000 000 0000 '00000 'the real property of this case' (hereinafter referred to as "the real property of this case") to Yellow-gu Seoul (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case") and received KRW 000 on the date of the contract, and KRW 00 on November 15, 2006 and KRW 000 on December 15, 2006.

B. On January 29, 2007, NoB deposited the total amount of KRW 000 out of the purchase price of the instant case received from CC and DaDD on two occasions to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”).

C. On January 3, 2011, the head of the Dobong Tax Office under the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office imposed capital gains tax on January 31, 2011 on the fact that Trade UnionB transferred the right to move into the instant real estate to Yellow and PD as above, and on January 31, 201.

D. AB did not pay the capital gains tax imposed as above (hereinafter referred to as the “capital gains tax of this case”), and imposed additional dues and increased additional dues due to the tax in arrears thereafter, thereby becoming 00 won at the time of the closing of the argument in this case.

E. Meanwhile, at the time of the transfer of the instant case, trade unions were active property with the market value of KRW 000,000,000 OOOOO 000, the market value of which is equivalent to KRW 000,000, and the total amount of deposits to agricultural cooperatives and new banks, such as the following table, was 000, and the small property was 00,000,000 won.

[Based on Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The establishment of a fraudulent act;

(a) The existence and scope of the preserved claim;

In principle, a claim that can be protected by a creditor's right of revocation may be a preserved claim of the creditor's right of revocation in the near future because there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there is a legal relationship that is the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that at the time of the fraudulent act, the right should be established in the near future based on such legal relationship, and that the possibility is realized in the near future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001). In light of the above facts acknowledged earlier, a claim of KRW 00 for transfer income tax against NoBB is related to the sale of the right to occupy the real estate in the above case, which was established after the date of the establishment of the fraudulent act as alleged by the plaintiff, and it is highly probable that the above claim is established in the near future based on the legal relations that were the basis of the deposit in this case by NoBB at the time of the deposit in this case, and that the additional tax claim in this case was established after the date.

B. Legal nature of the deposit of this case

In light of the purport of the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality in which Trade UnionB deposited KRW 000 on January 29, 2007 with the agricultural bank account under the name of the Defendant, and the deposit account holder entered in the deposit contract to be a party to the deposit contract, it is reasonable to view that the above KRW 00,000 deposited in the account under the name of the Defendant was donated to the Defendant that is the deposit account holder under the name of the Defendant. In this regard, the Defendant asserted that Trade Union borrowed the Defendant’s name, and directly opened and managed the said account, and that the above amount was not donated to the Defendant under the real name of the deposit account. However, the Defendant did not accept the Defendant’s allegation that the deposit account was made in writing with the deposit account holder through the real name verification procedure between the financial institution and the visitors, and that it was extremely exceptional to the Defendant’s request for the return of deposit deposit amount under the name of the deposit account holder, and that the Defendant’s request for return of deposit amount would vest in the deposit account under the name of the said 000-O.

(c) Insolvent and intention to be insolvent of the NoB;

According to the facts acknowledged above, the net property of the Trade Union and LaborB at the time of the Trade Union and LaborB’s gift of this case was KRW 000 (total sum of positive property) - KRW 000 (total sum of small property)). However, as the gift of this case led to a debt excess status (=00 won = 000 won -00 won), the gift of this case by Trade Union and LaborB constitutes fraudulent act, and as long as the intention of the Trade Union and LaborB’s death is recognized, it is presumed that the Defendant was aware that the gift of this case would result in a shortage in the common security of the general creditors such as the Plaintiff.

3. Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s act of remitting KRW 000 to the Plaintiff on January 29, 2007 constitutes a fraudulent act, and considering the fact that the subject matter of the fraudulent act is not possible or substantially difficult to return originals in money, the restitution should be made by means of compensation for value. Therefore, the Defendant’s cancellation of the instant gift agreement entered into between the Defendant and the LaborB, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from the day following the date when the judgment became final and conclusive.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.