B. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff OOO and the plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day following the date of the conclusion of the judgment of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. A. B and the Defendant were married family members, and B were in arrears with the following national taxes at the time of May 10, 2013, May 10, 2013, the date of the instant lawsuit.

[Attachment]

No.

Items of Taxation

Reversion

Deadline for payment

Notice Amount (won)

The current amount in arrears

Date of establishment of tax liability;

1

Value-added Tax

2, 2007

June 30, 2009

OOO

OOO

December 31, 2007

2

Sang Dong-dong

1, 2008

June 30, 2009

OOO

OOO

6.30 6.10

3

Sang Dong-dong

2, 2008

June 30, 2009

OOO

OOO

November 7, 2008

4

Sang Dong-dong

2, 2008

Mar. 15, 2010

OOO

OOO

November 7, 2008

5

Global Income Tax

2007

.7.31

OOO

OOO

December 31, 2007

6

Sang Dong-dong

208

July 31, 2010

OOO

OOO

December 31, 2007

OOO

OOO

B. Meanwhile, this B transferred money to the Defendant as stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each remittance of this case”).

C. B B’s property status from May 29, 2008 to January 19, 2009

As such, it was insolvent, and the same applies to the date of closing argument in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the revocation of fraudulent act and the claim for restitution

A. Formation of preserved claims

1) The liability to pay value-added taxes is naturally constituted under law without any separate act of the tax authority or the taxpayer (Article 21(1)7 of the Framework Act on National Taxes) when the taxable period ends (Article 21(1)11 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 21 and Article 22 of the National Tax Collection Act are the kind of incidental tax imposed in the interest for arrears if the national tax is not paid by the due date; Article 21 and Article 22 of the same Act are the kind of incidental tax imposed in the interest for arrears if the national tax is not paid by the due date; Article 22 of the same Act is determined as a matter of course, if the national tax is not paid by the due date without the due date of payment by the due date by the due date by the due date by the due date by the due date of the tax authority; Article 21 and Article 22 of the same Act. Thus, the amount of the tax claim is also determined as a matter of course, so long as the right of revocation is recognized as a preserved claim by the right of revocation.

Since then, additional charges and increased additional charges incurred until the closing of argument in fact-finding proceedings are also included (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007).

2) According to the above facts, each of the instant taxation claims was already established on the date indicated in the column of “the date on which the tax liability was established” in the table of Section 1-A, the transferor of each of the instant remittances, and thus, each of the instant taxation claims against B may be the preserved claim in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant fraudulent act.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

1) The parties' assertion

A) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the transfer of each of the amounts of this case to the defendant to the defendant with the intention to commit a fraudulent act, even though the plaintiff knew that the BB would prejudice the taxation rights holder in the situation where the tax obligations of this case are delinquent.

B) Defendant’s assertion

In this regard, the defendant asserts that, from May 23, 2007 to November 1, 2008, 56 times loaned OOOOB to her husband or to her husband or cannot be viewed as a gift because it constitutes an act of transfer of property jointly owned by the husband.

2) Determination

A) Relevant legal principles

(1) If a debtor donated his/her own property to another person under excess of his/her obligation, such act constitutes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da11494, May 11, 2006). However, in cases where the debtor’s repayment according to the principal place of obligation to a certain creditor while in excess of his/her obligation leads to a decrease in the joint security of other creditors, the performance does not constitute a fraudulent act, in principle, unless the debtor, in collusion with some creditors, has performed performance with the intent to prejudice other creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da60822, May 28, 2004).

(2) As in the instant case, the creditor seeking revocation of a fraudulent act asserts that it is a gift to the debtor's beneficiary, where the beneficiary contests that it was received as repayment for the existing debt, this constitutes denial of the creditor's assertion, and as seen in the instant legal doctrine, the contents that the creditor should assert and prove depending on whether it was a gift or a repayment. Thus, it should be proved that there are special circumstances as seen earlier, such as the fact that the act of paying the above amount constitutes a gift, or that the act of paying the amount constitutes a repayment for the purpose of recognizing it as a fraudulent act, and that there is an intent to harm the creditor, etc. The burden of proof is on the part of the creditor's assertion of a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da28686, May 31, 2007).

B) Legal nature of each remittance of the instant case

In light of the following circumstances, which can be seen in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, i.e., ① the instant deposit falls under the B’s responsible property, and the Defendant is in the family relationship with the B; ② the BB, which was in arrears with the instant tax liability, transferred to the Defendant a large amount of money by dividing it into the Defendant; ③ the Defendant first withdrawn the Defendant’s account; furthermore, the Defendant also asserted that the Defendant had transferred a large amount of money to the B while carrying on its own business, but it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s prioritit ( even based on the evidence submitted by the Defendant, only if the fuel payment of the BB purchase occurred after May 7, 2008, and does not appear directly transferred from the Defendant’s account to the CC; and) each of the instant remittance act is considered a donation (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant remittance act”).

C) Whether the debtor is insolvent and the deceased will, etc.

(1) In a case where a debtor has engaged in a series of acts of disposal of several properties, in principle, whether each act causes insolvency or not shall be determined based on whether each act occurred (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da69026, Apr. 27, 2001). However, in a case where there are special circumstances to deem a series of acts as one act, it shall be determined as a whole when a series of acts is deemed as one act. In this case, in determining whether there are such special circumstances, the other party to the disposition is the same, whether each disposition is close to time, whether the other party and the debtor are specially related, and whether the other party and the debtor are the same as the motive or opportunity for each disposition shall be specific criteria (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da7795, Jul. 22, 2005).

(2) All at the time of each of the instant donations are identical to the entry of “B’s financial status” in the attached Form BB, and eventually, each of the instant donations was made in excess of the debt of the BB, and constitutes a fraudulent act. It is reasonable to deem that the debtor, the debtor, was aware that the lack of joint security was caused by the shortage of the joint security, thereby impairing the general creditors, including the plaintiff. In addition, as long as the intention of the BBB’s damage was recognized, the defendant’s bad faith, the beneficiary, is presumed to be the beneficiary, and there is no other evidence to reverse this.

(c) Revocation of fraudulent acts and reinstatement;

Therefore, each of the instant donations between the Defendant and B should be revoked as a fraudulent act. In addition, the Defendant should return to the Plaintiff each of the instant donations received as the instant donations.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day after the date of the conclusion of the judgment of this case to the day of full payment.

The plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.