2. Defendant AA shall pay to the Plaintiff 53,876,492 won, Defendant BB, CB,CC, DD, and EE, 35,917,661 won, and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final to the day of complete payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

4. Of the litigation costs, 5% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder 95% is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

1. The agreement on the division of inherited property concluded on June 23, 2012 between the Defendants and Nonparty FF on June 23, 2012 is revoked.

2. Defendant AA shall pay to the Plaintiff 5,459,350 won, Defendant BB, CB,CC, DD, and EE, 36,972,890 won, and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final to the day of complete payment.

A. On June 23, 2012, the net GG, the FF’s license, died on June 23, 2012. The inherited property has each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant inherited property”). At the time of inheritance, the total value was equivalent to KRW 1,372,035,50, and the heir was the FF, Defendant BBB, CCC, DD, and EE, the spouse of the Plaintiff.

B. On July 23, 2013, among the instant inherited property, the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the inheritance by agreement division on June 23, 2013 (hereinafter “instant inheritance division agreement”) with respect to each of the 2/11 shares as to Defendant AA’s 3/11 shares, Defendant BB, CCC, DD and EE, respectively. The Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 13, 2015 with respect to the instant inherited property on the grounds of the inheritance by agreement division on June 23, 2013. The Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant inherited property on January 13, 2015.

Facts that there is no dispute for recognition, and described in Gap evidence 2, 3, and 9, respectively.

(including numbers), the purport of the whole pleading;

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Summary of Defendant CCC’s assertion

In accordance with the National Tax Service’s provision on the collection of national taxes, the National Tax Collection Act, etc., the FF tracked and managed FF’s property from time to time as a delinquent taxpayer of the first class, and the Plaintiff was aware that there was an agreement on the division of the instant inherited property around July 23, 2013, when the registration of inheritance was completed following the agreement on the division of the instant inherited property on December 31, 2012, when the Defendants filed a return on inheritance payment by the public official in charge of default as a delinquent taxpayer of the first class, and the Plaintiff was aware that there was an agreement on the division of the instant inherited property around July 23, 2013. Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the agreement on division of the instant inherited property was filed one year after the date on which the

B. Determination

In the exercise of obligee's right of revocation, "the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the obligor becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while knowing that the obligee would prejudice the obligee. This is not sufficient to simply recognize the fact that the obligor conducted a disposal of the property, and it is also required to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that the obligor had an intent to deceive the obligor. On the other hand, the burden of proof as to the degree of limitation period lies in the other party to the obligee's revocation lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102, Mar. 26,

However, when the State exercises its right of revocation against a legal act of a delinquent taxpayer by making a claim preserved for a claim against a delinquent taxpayer, barring any special circumstance where the State becomes aware of the starting point of the limitation period, it shall be determined on the basis of the tax official’s perception in charge of the duty to collect and preserve tax claims, and it shall not be determined on the basis of the perception of other public officials in charge of the duty to register the delinquent’s disposal of property. Therefore, when it is recognized that a tax official was aware of not only the delinquent taxpayer’s disposal of property but also the existence of a specific fraudulent act and that the delinquent taxpayer had expressed his/her intent to defame, the State may be deemed to have known of the cause of revocation at that time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da24707,

In light of the above legal principles, the Defendants and FF filed a report on the tax base of inheritance on December 31, 2012, with respect to the instant inherited property on December 31, 2012. However, inasmuch as the Defendants and FF reported the inheritance tax according to the statutory share of inheritance with respect to the instant inherited property differently from the agreement on the division of inherited property, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was aware of the agreement on the division of inherited property at that time. Meanwhile, as seen earlier, although the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the agreement on the division of inherited property on July 23, 2013, the Defendants and FF did not have known the Defendants and FF officials in charge of the collection and preservation of the tax claim as well as FF, that the agreement on the division of inherited property was reached between the Defendants and FF and FF, and that FF had not known the intent to commit suicide.

In addition, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that FF consulted on the division of the inherited property of this case with a private will around July 31, 2012 or July 23, 2013, and there is no other evidence to prove that the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of the exclusion period. Thus, the prior defense of the Defendant CCC is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The parties' assertion

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

At the time of the consultation on the division of the instant inherited property, the Plaintiff had a claim equivalent to KRW 203,350,910 (hereinafter “instant tax claim”) with respect to FF as stated in the “Detailed Statement on FF Default”, and FF did not own any active property, while the Plaintiff was in excess of its liability by bearing the aforementioned tax liability against FF.

Nevertheless, FF made an agreement with the Defendants on the division of the inherited property of this case with the content that the Plaintiff, who is a tax claim, waives his/her inheritance shares in excess of debt. This is to be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, which is a tax claim, and within the scope of the FF’s share portion, as compensation for value in lieu of restitution to its original state, Defendant AA is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 55,459,350 won (=203,350,910 won x 3/11 share), Defendant BBB, CCC, DD, and EE amounting to 36,972,890 won (=203,350,910 won x 2/11 share) and damages for delay from the day following the day when the judgment became final and conclusive.

2) Summary of the Defendants’ assertion

(1) Regarding preserved claims:

FF did not have received a tax payment notice from the Plaintiff on the instant taxation claim, and thus, the instant taxation claim is null and void as a matter of course. Even if the instant taxation claim is valid, the instant lawsuit was filed more than eight years after the payment deadline for the instant taxation claim, and the five-year extinctive prescription was completed.

(2) As to fraudulent act:

FF obtained donation of more than statutory inheritance before the birth of the net GG, and special profits therefrom, the Defendants and FF consulted with FF on the division of inherited property as it did not inherit the inherited property of this case. Accordingly, the agreement on the division of inherited property of this case does not constitute fraudulent act.

B. Determination as to preserved claims (tax claims of this case)

1) Whether there was a duty payment notice on the instant taxation claims

Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that documents, such as a tax payment notice, shall be served on the domicile, residence, place of business or office of the holder of a title deed, and Article 10 of the same Act provides that documents shall be served by mail or electronic delivery (Article 10). When documents, such as a tax payment notice, are served by mail (main sentence of paragraph (2)). Barring special circumstances, where mail is sent by means of registration, it shall be deemed that the documents have been served by registered mail to the recipient at that time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu3819, Mar. 27, 1992; 92Nu13127, Dec. 11, 1992).

"Public health account for this case and the documents for each tax claim of this case were destroyed after the lapse of the time limit for document keeping (5 years) by the National Tax Service. However, there is no doubt that the documents such as the above tax payment notice were sent to FF by registered mail, and there is no circumstance that the procedure for service by public notice was carried out. Rather, according to the evidence No. 4, the above tax payment notice should be presumed to have been delivered to FF lawfully lawfully at the time of the time of the delivery of each tax claim of this case, as stated in the notice No. 4 as follows: "the completion of service" in the notice for delivery of each tax payment notice of this case in the National Tax Service's computerized data, "if the documents were sent by public notice for delivery", "if the documents were sent by public notice for return classification", and "not corresponding to the column for the post-return processing code for return". Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that each tax payment notice was delivered to FF lawfully at that time. Therefore, the defendants' assertion that there was no tax payment notice for

According to Articles 27(1) and 28(1) and (2)4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if a right of the State to collect national taxes is not exercised within five years from the time it is possible to exercise such right, the extinctive prescription shall expire. The extinctive prescription shall be interrupted due to a tax payment notice, urging or demand for payment, request for delivery and seizure, and the interrupted extinctive prescription shall commence anew from the time when the period from the time when it

Therefore, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to whether the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s instant tax claim has expired, the Plaintiff’s extinctive prescription was interrupted since it was recognized that the Plaintiff seized FF’s claims, such as the court deposit, as shown in the following table, as a tax payer of the instant tax claim: Provided, That in relation to the seized claim Nos. 1 through 11, 14, and 16 among the attached table No. 2 and 4, it is clear that five years have not elapsed from December 12, 2012, which is the date of final cancellation of the argument of the instant case, as of the date of the closing of argument.Therefore, there is no reason for the Defendants’ defense of extinctive prescription.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case can be the preserved claim for revocation of the fraudulent act with the claim arising before the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case.

C. Whether to recognize a fraudulent act

1) The premised legal doctrine

The agreement on the division of inherited property is to confirm the reversion of inherited property by either having all or part of the inherited property which has been temporarily owned by the co-inheritors upon the commencement of inheritance as a sole ownership by each inheritor, or having it performed as a new co-ownership relationship, and therefore, it is a juristic act aiming at property rights by its nature, and thus can be subject to the exercise

Even if a debtor in excess of his/her obligation waives his/her right to inherited property in consultation on division of inherited property, thereby reducing joint collateral for general creditors, it shall not be revoked as a fraudulent act, unless the result of division of property is deemed to fall short of the extent equivalent to the debtor's specific share of inheritance, and even if the result falls short of the extent equivalent to the specific share of inheritance, the scope of revocation as a fraudulent act shall be limited to the portion falling short thereof. In such cases, the circumstances that the specific share of inheritance is different from the statutory share of inheritance, such as a designated share of inheritance, contributory portion, special benefit, etc., should be asserted and proved by the debtor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da

2) Determination

In light of the above legal principles, we examine whether the result of the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case was less than the FF's specific share of inheritance.

(A) heir and statutory share of inheritance;

According to the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendants and FF are co-inheritorss of the network GG, and the statutory inheritance portion is 3/13, FF, Defendant BB, CCC, DD, and EE, each of which is 2/13 by Defendant AA, the spouse, and 2/13.

B) The net GG’s inherited property

At the time of the death of the deceased GG, the inheritance of this case in the aggregate amounting to KRW 1,372,035,50,000, is as seen earlier.

(c)the existence and value of the FF’s special proceeds;

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the deceased GG donated to FF on April 25, 2001 3,300 square meters of forest land of 00 Gun, 00 Gun, 00 Gun, 00 Gun, 00 m20 m2,650 m2, and FF completed the registration of transfer of shares on May 2, 2001 due to gift on the above land. The registration of transfer on February 5, 2002 changed the land category to "lease" and the registration of transfer on the ground of partition of co-owned property is recognized. Thus, FF is a special beneficiary who received the above land from the deceased GG.

On the other hand, in calculating a specific share of inheritance of an inheritor in consideration of such special benefits, an heir shall evaluate inherited property and special benefits property at the time of commencement of inheritance and based thereon (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 96S62, Mar. 21, 1997): Provided, That in cases where a transferee of donated property to a donee or donee after donation changes at his/her own expense the nature, etc. of donated property and increases in the value at the time of commencement of inheritance, an amount at the time of commencement of inheritance should be calculated based on the nature, etc. at the time of donation without considering such changes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da104768, Nov. 12,

The Defendants asserted that the value of the given land should be KRW 373,465,00, which is the market price at the time of the commencement of inheritance (division consultation of inherited property in this case) based on the “site,” which is the current land category, (i.e., 3,305 square meters x 113,00 square meters x 113,00 square meters) since the net GGG donated land to FF after changing its nature, such as the category of land subject to gift. However, in light of the following circumstances, the FF’s donation of the above land, namely, the fact that the registration of land category change has been made after the donation of the land, the FF reported and paid gift tax based on the “forest before land category change,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the value of the given land should be calculated on the basis of the FF’s shape at the time of the commencement of inheritance as the “forest at the time of donation,” and there is no special evidence to acknowledge it as the market price of the said land as the Plaintiff’s.

(d)the calculation of the FF’s specific shares of inheritance;

First of all, the inherited property of the inheritee and the special profits of co-inheritors shall be calculated by calculating the deemed inherited property as the sum of the inherited property of the inheritee and the special profits of the co-inheritors, by multiplying each statutory share of inheritance by the statutory share of inheritance of the co-inheritors, and the specific share of inheritance of co-inheritors by deducting special profits here. Accordingly, the FF's specific

○ Deemed Inherited property: 1,388,031,700 won (=total value of the deceased GG’s inherited property 1,372,035,500

Won + FF 15,96,200 won in total of the special profits of FF

○ Amount of FF’s legal inheritance: 213,543,338 won (=Property 1,388,031,700 won deemed inherited property x 2/13,00 won, hereinafter the same shall apply)

○ Specific shares of FF in inheritance: 197,547,138 (=legal shares of inheritance 213,543,338) - Special shares of inheritance

Profit 15,96,200 won

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, FF’s waiver of all rights to inherited property under the agreement on the division of inherited property of this case with the Defendants in excess of its obligation, thereby reducing joint collateral for general creditors within the scope of specific inherited property. Therefore, this constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, a creditor, and the FF’s intention and the Defendants’ bad faith are presumed.

(d) Method and scope of restitution; and

As seen earlier, the Defendants sold the instant inherited property to a third party. As such, the Plaintiff may seek a return of the value against the Defendants, the beneficiary, instead of returning the original property.

Therefore, the FF and the Defendants’ agreement on the division of the instant inherited property should be cancelled within the limit of KRW 197,547,138, which is the lesser of the total inheritance amount of FF, a creditor’s preserved claim, and KRW 197,547,138, which is the lesser of the total inheritance amount of KRW 203,350,910,910, which is the creditor’s preserved claim, and KRW 197,547,138, which is the debtor’s specific shortage of inheritance amount of KRW 197,547,138, which is the joint collateral value. Defendant AA is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount equivalent thereto. Defendant BB, BB, CCC, DD, and EE are each 35,917,61 won (=197,547,138,131 shares x 2/11 shares) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the next day of this judgment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is justified within the scope of each above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.