2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The Plaintiff conducted a tax investigation with respect to B from September 5, 2013 to September 12, 2013, and notified on November 1, 2013 that the Plaintiff shall pay the comprehensive income tax omitted from filing a return for the year 2008 to November 30, 2011 as follows:

On December 31, 2008, 2008, global income tax was notified of the first due date for payment as of the date of the abstract establishment of the tax liability of the tax item in the year of belonging year, and on December 31, 2008, on December 12, 2013, 569, 590, 209 December 31, 2009, and on December 31, 2010, 69,098, 690, 690, 2011, on December 31, 2011, each real estate (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) was sold to the Defendant on September 9, 2013, each of the instant real estate registered in the separate list (hereinafter “the instant real estate registration was received”) by the former District Court No. 973, Dec. 3, 2011.

B was in excess of the positive property at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract.

【The Defendant’s assertion that the instant sales contract constituted “B’s fraudulent act bearing tax liability,” and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the Defendant’s assertion that there was no dispute with the Plaintiff, and that the instant lawsuit was filed against the Plaintiff, claiming that the instant sales contract constituted “B’s fraudulent act bearing tax liability,” and seeking its revocation and restitution. On November 1, 2013, when conducting a tax investigation with respect to B, the Plaintiff’s old tax secretary filed the instant lawsuit on the ground that the Plaintiff had known that each of the instant real estate was transferred to the Defendant on the date of November 1, 2013, when he/she conducted an overall investigation with respect to B’s property details, one year has passed since it was obvious that each of the instant real estate was transferred to the Defendant on May 3, 2016. As such, the instant lawsuit was unlawful after the exclusion period expired.

At the first day of pleading of the first instance ( July 15, 2016), the defendant withdrawn the exclusion period of the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit in this case from the exclusion period of the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit in this case, and it reaches the trial.