A. The sales contract concluded on March 10, 2010 between the Defendant and ○○○ on the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 000.

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

C. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The sales contract concluded on March 10, 2010 between the Defendant and ○○○ on real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 000. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 00 won and the amount calculated by the annual rate of 5% from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment (the Plaintiff’s claim was amended to seek compensation for value at the time of the first instance trial while seeking return of the original property).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

A. On February 1, 2011, on the ground that ○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”) that runs the scrap metal processing business, etc. undergoes a return on income in 2008 and 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) on February 1, 201, set the payment deadline of KRW 000 of the corporate tax in 2008; (b) KRW 000 of the corporate tax in 2009; and KRW 000 of the value-added tax in 2008 as of February 28, 201.

B. On October 17, 2011, the Plaintiff, a representative of ○○○○, designated ○○ as the secondary taxpayer of the said tax. After doing so, the amount of the tax in arrears by ○○○○○ as of October 17, 201 is 00 won in total (hereinafter “instant tax claim”).

C. On March 10, 2010, ○○○ entered into a sales contract on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant, which is the only property owned by ○○○○○○, and on the same day, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said real estate to the Defendant. However, the Defendant is the Defendant’s fraud.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 2-1, 3-1 to 7, and Gap evidence 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful because the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 4, 2013, which was around three years from March 10, 2010 when the instant sales contract was concluded, with the lapse of the exclusion period of the lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act.

In the exercise of creditor's right of revocation, "the day when the creditor becomes aware of the ground for revocation" means the day when the creditor becomes aware of the requirements for creditor's right of revocation, that is, the day when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the creditor. There is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff, the creditor, was aware of the fact that the contract of this case was constituted a fraudulent act one year prior to the time when the lawsuit was brought, and there is no evidence to

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Establishment of fraudulent act

(i)the occurrence of preserved claims;

In order to establish the secondary tax liability, the occurrence of the fact that the primary taxpayer’s failure to pay taxes, etc. meets the requirements thereof. Therefore, the time of establishment is after the lapse of at least the “payment deadline of the primary tax liability” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du13234, May 9, 2012).

○○○’s secondary tax liability arises after February 28, 201, which is the payment deadline for corporate tax and value-added tax, of Gangseo Industrial Machinery, the principal taxpayer. Therefore, the instant tax claim did not enter into an agreement prior to the instant sales contract.

However, in principle, it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that serve as the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future because it is realized in the near future. In the event a claim has been created in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim, and the legal relations that serve as the basis of the establishment of the claim shall not be limited to the legal relations under an agreement between the parties, but shall be deemed to include the quasi

In other words, the following circumstances are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire arguments. ① The date of establishing the tax liability of ○○○○ was the corporate tax in 2008 and the corporate tax in 2008 (Article 21(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes) in the case of the corporate tax in 2009 and the corporate tax in 2009 (Article 21(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). At the time of the instant sales contract, there was a high probability of underreporting the corporate tax and the value-added tax, which is the basis of establishing the tax claim of this case, and ② insofar as ○○○○ filed a return as above, there was a high probability of establishing the tax claim of corporate tax and the value-added tax through the near future tax investigation, etc. < Amended by Act No. 11013, Feb. 1, 201; Act No. 1010, Feb. 28, 2011>

(ii) insolvent and intention to commit suicide in the Easement;

As seen earlier, the instant sales contract in which ○○○ disposes of its sole property constitutes a fraudulent act as an act of reducing the joint security of other creditors, including the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, and constitutes a fraudulent act; it is recognized that ○○○ constitutes an intentional act; and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed.

3) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

In the auction procedure on the instant real estate, ○○○ issued a decision to permit the sale of the instant real estate, but the said decision was found out of additional loans to observe the ownership of the instant real estate after the successful bid price was repaid to the buyer. However, it is inevitable for a lending financial institution to lend additional loans at the credit standing of ○○○ to the Defendant, which entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendant and received an additional loan and paid the successful bidder a successful bid price and revoked the auction procedure. In light of the substance of such act, the instant sales act cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act. Moreover, it cannot be deemed that ○○○ had an intention to commit fraud, and thus, it is deemed that the Defendant also acted in good faith.

Even if the Defendant’s assertion is true, the ownership of the instant real estate owned by ○○○○○ is ultimately transferred to the Defendant, thereby bringing about a decrease in ○○○○○’s responsible property. As such, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed as an act of undermining the general creditors of ○○○ including the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s remaining assertion premised on this is without merit.

(b) Methods and scope of reinstatement;

1) Legal principles

If a creditor’s revocation of fraudulent act and a claim for restitution are acknowledged, the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is obligated to return the object of the fraudulent act to the debtor as restitution, and if it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the original object, the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is obligated to compensate for the value equivalent to the value of the object of the fraudulent act as performance of the duty to restore. Since the beneficiary, who had no claim or obligation relationship with the original creditor, bears the duty to restore upon the creditor’s revocation, the law specifically recognizes from the perspective of equity, the obligation to compensate for value is established because the return of the object is impossible or considerably difficult, and it does not require the other party’s intent or negligence as it is impossible to return the object. Here, the original return is not merely an absolute and physical impossibility, but also a case where the creditor cannot expect the realization of performance from the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da4004, Jun. 11, 2009).

(ii) the facts of recognition

According to the purport of Gap evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 1-3, and the whole arguments, at the time when the sales contract of this case was concluded, the real estate of this case was established with the maximum debt amount of 00 won, the debtor 00, the mortgagee 00, and the ○○ Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "○○○ Bank"), and 00 on March 10, 2010, on the date of the sales contract of this case, the ○○○○ cancelled the registration of creation of the above collateral and completed the registration of establishment of the ownership under the name of the defendant. The defendant completed the registration of establishment of the ○○ community Co., Ltd. on the same day, and the defendant completed the registration of establishment of the ○○ community Co., Ltd. with the debtor, the mortgagee, and the ○○ community Co., Ltd. established the above collateral and received the loan and completed the registration of establishment of the ○○ Bank upon the application for voluntary auction procedure for the real estate of this case.

3) Determination

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles, since the registration of establishment of a mortgage was cancelled in the name of ○○○ Management Corporation, which was already established on the instant real estate at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, a fraudulent act, the entire real estate was provided as a joint collateral by general creditors. However, in order for ○○○ to cancel the auction of the instant real estate, in practice, ○○○○ established a collateral security on the instant real estate with the instant real estate in the process of transferring the name of ○○ Saemaul Depository to the Defendant, and revoked a voluntary auction and cancel a collateral security, the instant real estate was merely changed by only the mortgagee before and after the fraudulent act, and can be deemed as not having been provided as a joint collateral by the general creditor. Accordingly, it is reasonable to reinstate the real estate due to the cancellation of the sales contract of this case, which is a fraudulent act, as a means of compensation for value.

With respect to the specific scope of return of value, the market price of the real estate of this case at the time of the closing of argument in the trial at the time of revoking a fraudulent act, can be recognized as the fact that the market price of the real estate of this case at the time of closing of argument in the trial at the time of revocation of the fraudulent act. Since the total amount of debt repaid by the defendant to ○○ Bank to cancel the auction and to cancel the right to collateral security is excluded from the joint collateral of the general creditor, the contract of this case should be revoked within the limit of KRW 00 (00-00) and the compensation for

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant sales contract concluded between the Defendant and ○○○ on the instant real estate shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 000, and the Defendant shall be liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 000 and 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day following the day this judgment becomes final to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is partially accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as above.