2. The defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by ○○ District Court ○○○ registry office 2000. 0. 00. ○○○○○ registry office with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to AA.

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

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

A. On January 200, 200, the director of the BB tax office under the Plaintiff-affiliated B made an additional notice of the Plaintiff’s global income tax on AA, ① ○○○○○○ in the 200 year, ② ○○ in the 200 year, ③ ○○ in the 200 year, ③ ○○ in the aggregate of ○○ in the 200 year, respectively.

B. AA completed the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each real estate of this case") on 2000. 0. 0. 200 and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale on 0. 0. 200.

C. At the time of the above sale, AA had active property equivalent to the total market value of each of the instant real estate, etc., and there was a small property equivalent to the Plaintiff’s tax claim, etc. total amount of KRW 00 million.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 8 (including the number of each branch; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Whether the preserved claim is established

The Plaintiff’s global income tax claim 200 or 200 years from 200 to 200 years against AA, a preserved claim, has already been established prior to the fraudulent act. Therefore, the obligee’s right of revocation may be the preserved claim. Moreover, an obligee’s addition or exchange of a claim to be preserved in the course of filing a claim for revocation of a fraudulent act is merely a modification of the assertion as to the method of attack, which makes the right of revocation of the fraudulent act reasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da13532, May 27, 2003).

AA’s act of selling each of the instant real estate to the Defendant in excess of its obligation is presumed to have caused a result of reducing the obligees’ joint collateral, and thus, it is presumed that AA had an intention of deception, and the Defendant’s bad faith as a beneficiary is presumed.

C. Judgment on the defendant's argument

Although the defendant alleged that AA and the defendant did not have the intention of deception, the above assertion is not acceptable, since there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.