2. The Defendant to BBB:

(a) procedures for the registration of transfer of ownership on real property listed in the annex 1 list due to the cancellation of the fraudulent act by this judgment on the fixed date date;

B. The procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on February 22, 201 by the Ulsan District Court No. 15772, as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list, will be implemented, respectively.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. As of December 31, 2010, Nonparty BBB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, Nonparty BB) imposed tax liability of KRW 259,211,300 on the Plaintiff as of December 31, 201, including value-added tax, wage and salary income tax, etc., but did not have been paid at all until now.

B. On the other hand, around February 22, 2011, the non-party company sold to each defendant the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter, No. 1), and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter, No. 2) owned by it (hereinafter, the sale of this case), and on the same day as to the real estate No. 1 and 2 as to each defendant, the registration of ownership transfer was made based on the purchase as No. 15772 on February 22, 201. At that time, the non-party company did not have any other property except the real estate No. 1 and 2.

C. After that, around June 29, 2011, the Defendant set up a right to collateral security (16,800,000) in the name of the new bank, a new bank with respect to the first real estate (1).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The non-party company sells to the defendant the first and second real estate which is its sole property in excess of its obligation, which must be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff who is the tax claimant, and the defendant must restore to its original state, and the first real estate to its original state, and the second real estate shall be subject to the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the above transfer registration in the future of the defendant with respect to the second real estate.

(2) Determination

(A) the existence of the preserved claim

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff had a tax claim of KRW 000 against the non-party company before the sale of this case took place, which is a preserved claim for the revocation of fraudulent act.

(B) Whether a fraudulent act was established

Unless there exist any special circumstances, changing the sale of real estate, which is the sole property of a debtor, into money that can be consumed, becomes a fraudulent act. The debtor's intent of deception, which is a subjective element of a fraudulent act, refers to recognizing that there is a shortage of joint collateral of claims, and thus, does not require or intent to impair creditors, and where the debtor sells real estate, which is the sole property, and alters into money that can be consumed easily, the debtor's intent of deception is presumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da2515, Apr. 9, 199; 200Da41875, Apr. 24, 200). In this case, the non-party company sold 1 and 2 real estate, which is one of its sole property, to the defendant under the condition that the plaintiff bears a tax liability in 00 won, and thus, the sale in this case constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, which is the creditor of the non-party company, and thus, should be revoked.

(C) Method of restitution

In a case where the transfer of ownership of a real estate becomes a fraudulent act, the method of restitution would normally be to cancel the registration of ownership transfer made in the future of the beneficiary with respect to the relevant real estate. However, in a case where the beneficiary registered the transfer of ownership to a third party based on the registration of ownership transfer in his name, the person exercising the right of revocation may seek against all the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser (the above third party) the implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of fraudulent act and for cancellation of each registration made in the future against the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser with respect to the relevant real estate, and it is also possible to claim against the beneficiary only the beneficiary to register the transfer of ownership in the future of the debtor on the ground of restitution of the fixed date of the judgment of revocation of fraudulent act and restitution to the original state (the same does not give more disadvantage to the debtor, beneficiary or subsequent purchaser than the case of claiming cancellation of the registration). Accordingly, the defendant is liable to cancel the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of restitution due to the cancellation of the fixed date of this judgment, and for the second real estate, the registration of registration of ownership is completed on February 27, 27.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(1) The defendant's assertion

The defendant lent a total of KRW 000 to the non-party company from June 2009 to July 200 of the same year, and only received the first and second real estate from the non-party company as payment in kind. Since the non-party company did not know about the property status or tax delinquency status at the time, the defendant's transfer of the first and second real estate does not constitute a fraudulent act.

(2) Determination

The debtor's sole property in excess of his obligation constitutes a fraudulent act and thus, it constitutes a fraudulent act if the non-party company transferred the ownership of the first and second real property to the defendant. However, even if the defendant's above assertion is based on the defendant's assertion that the defendant's above assertion constitutes a beneficiary of his own effort. However, it is sufficient to recognize that the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant acted in good faith as to the non-party company's insolvency at the time when the non-party company was transferred the ownership of the first and second real property from the non-party company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in light of the fact that the defendant was a shareholder holding 20% of the total shares issued by the non-party company's auditor and the non-party company (which is the ground for recognition: the defendant was well known about the property status of the non-party company. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

If so, each of the claims against the plaintiff against the defendant of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of all.