1. Facts of recognition;

A. Tax claims against Category AA of the Plaintiff

(1) Between Section A and BB on December 29, 2005, ○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, owned by Section A.

425-21 Large 209.9m2 and its ground buildings, ○○-dong 425-26 large 222m2 and its ground buildings

In 650,00,000 won, A had concluded a sales contract with the content that was sold in 650,000 won. Thereafter, on December 29, 2005, with respect to the above ○○○ Dong 425-21 site and its ground buildings, on December 29, 2005, A had completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of CC, a partner of the above ○○ Dong 425-26 site and its ground buildings.

Luxembourg Nevertheless, on February 6, 2006, the head of Dong-gu Tax Office shall transfer the value of each of the above real estate to him.

320,000,000 won was reduced to make a preliminary return of capital gains tax based on the actual market price.

Article 25(1) of the Act on the Protection of Civil and Fisheries Products from September 12, 2012 to October 20, 2012

As a result of the investigation of capital gains tax, the actual transaction price of each of the above real estate is KRW 650,00,000, and Category BB, who is the buyer of CategoryCC, prepared a sales contract in the name of actual transferee or CategoryCC and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and notified A of the results of tax investigation on November 5, 2012.

x) The head of the Dong Daegu Tax Office, on December 10, 2012, by fraud or other improper means at the time of filing a transfer income tax return by the AA.

With the application of 10 years of the exclusion period of national tax for the reason that the act was committed, the assessment of gains on transfer based on the actual transaction price (transfer value of 650,000,000) of each of the above real estate and the assessment of correction of the transfer income tax of 189,809,060 (including additional tax, payment period of additional tax, December 31, 2012) was made.

(v)the Tax Tribunal, on November 14, 2013, has dismissed an appeal filed by the AA that is dissatisfied with the said disposition;

The first instance court (Seoul District Court 2014Guhap20232) dismissed the claims of the AA on September 19, 2014, seeking the revocation of the said disposition, and the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2014Nu6358) dismissed the appeal of the AA on April 17, 2015. The final appeal is currently in progress (Supreme Court 2015Du41630).

⑹ 한편 위 각 부동산에 관하여, 2011. 2. 16. 매매를 원인으로 하여 김AA 명의로

After the registration of ownership transfer has been completed, the registration of ownership transfer has been completed in the name of KimB and EA on August 22, 2012.

B. The relationship between the AA and the defendant

Class AA and the defendant are married couple who completed the marriage report on June 29, 1978.

(c) Change in ownership of real estate listed in the attached list;

(1) Section A. With respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case") 206.

5. 11. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer on March 26, 2009 by reason of sale.

Shebly AA on December 5, 2012 with respect to the apartment of this case, the termination of title trust (hereinafter referred to as "the termination of title trust")

On December 5, 2012, the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court) completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of ownership transfer") to the defendant on the ground of the contract to terminate the title trust.

(d) the financial status of the A;

(1) Chapter A receives KRW 2,683,310 on September 4, 199 as pension after retirement from school on September 4, 199 (as of September 2013).

D. At the time of the conclusion of the instant contract for the termination of the title trust, the title trust was owned by Section A as the active property of Section A.

In addition to the apartment of this case, which is the only real estate, the above pension revenue and deposit claim KRW 2,524,646 (=A bank KRW 1,019,559 + BB bank KRW 1,505,087). However, as a small property, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim amounting to KRW 189,809,060 and the lease deposit amount of KRW 150,00,000 for the apartment of this case was liable.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap 1 through 9, 12, 17, 18, 20, 21, 27, 29 through 32 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1 and 27 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, (1) prior to the conclusion of the title trust contract of this case, real estate transfer, which is a legal relation that serves as the basis for establishing the Plaintiff’s tax claim (transfer income tax), and real estate transfer income tax preliminary return and tax investigation thereof, etc.; and (3) on December 10, 2012, when five (5) days have elapsed after the termination of the title trust contract of this case, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim becomes a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation; and (2) on the apartment of this case, which is the only real estate owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant, under the title trust termination contract of this case, was concluded with the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to be presumed to be excessive or excessive, and in such case, the obligor, the obligor, and the beneficiary.

Therefore, the title trust of this case between AA and the defendant as to the apartment of this case

The termination contract constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditors, including the plaintiff, and the defendant is obligated to restore the original state to its original state to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the ownership transfer registration of this case (the plaintiff asserts that the termination of title trust of this case is null and void because the contract of this case constitutes a false conspiracy with the plaintiff's assertion of fraudulent act; however, as long as the plaintiff's assertion on the fraudulent act is accepted, it does not determine the assertion on false conspiracy of agreement

B. As to this, the defendant's acquisition of the apartment of this case with the defendant's money and entrusted only the name of the husband in the name of the defendant in the name of the Dong, and thereafter, the defendant, the title truster, transferred the ownership of the apartment of this case from the Chapter A, the title trustee, to the effect that the act of acquiring

In accordance with Article 830(1) of the Civil Act, real estate acquired by one spouse in the name of his/her own name during the marriage is presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner. Therefore, in order to reverse such presumption, the other spouse must actually bear the price for the relevant real estate and prove that the other spouse acquired such real estate in order to substantially own such real estate. In this case, the mere fact that the other spouse is the source of the purchase fund does not necessarily mean that there was a title trust on the relevant real estate, and it does not mean that there was a title trust on the relevant real estate by comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances revealed through the relevant evidence, whether the other spouse bears the cost for the real possession of the relevant real estate. In particular, where it is difficult to acknowledge such fact by other evidence, it is difficult to deem that a title trust existed solely on the ground that the other spouse, other than the nominal owner, was the source of the purchase fund (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du8068, Sept. 25, 2008; 2010>

(3) The defendant's 0-6-6-6-1-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-77-1-7-77-77-77-1-7-7-7-7-7

3. Conclusion

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