- 1 -

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The contract on the donation of OOE concluded on February 23, 201 between the Defendant and 0B shall be revoked within the limit of OOE. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day following the day the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

A. On December 29, 2010, 000, 000 OB sold 10,612 square meters of 0,000 OO-Myeon O-si O-type O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-

B. On February 2, 2012, the Plaintiff notified 0B of the payment of the transfer income tax on the capital gains from the sale and purchase of the said forest by February 29, 2012. The Plaintiff failed to pay the transfer income tax by February 29, 2012, and as of the closing date of the instant pleadings by 0B, the unpaid tax amount as of the date of the instant pleadings by 0B is OB.

C. The Defendant was in de facto marital relationship from October 199 to January 201, 201. The 0B deposited OOOO members from the HongCC’s deposit account in the Defendant’s national bank account. Of the above money, the Defendant repaid the Defendant’s obligations to the Defendant’s national bank to the Defendant’s national bank, and returned OOB to OB on December 19, 201, and used the remainder for various purposes.

D. At the time of February 23, 2011, as active property of BaB, there were more than OOO members of the deposit claim against the bank, OOO members of the deposit claim against the new bank, OOO members of the deposit claim against the national bank, OO members of the deposit claim against the termination refund claim against the DD fire and marine insurance company, OO members of the termination refund claim against the DD fire and marine insurance company, while OO members of the small property were in excess of the obligation exceeding the positive property.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

With respect to the instant lawsuit, asserting that the Plaintiff’s donation of cash to the Defendant by means of depositing cash in the Defendant’s deposit account constitutes a fraudulent act, and that the Defendant’s lawsuit constitutes a fraudulent act and sought its revocation and restitution, the Defendant made a defense prior to the merits that the instant lawsuit was filed with the exclusion period expires, and thus unlawful.

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 4 (including the paper number), it is recognized that the citizen bank provided the plaintiff, September 10, 2012, with financial transaction information to the effect that "B paid OOOO Won to the defendant in the defendant's deposit account after receiving 000 won from HongCC." The plaintiff seems to have known that 0B paid 0B to the defendant around that time constitutes a cause for revocation of fraudulent act. The facts raised on July 8, 2013 before the lapse of one year from the lawsuit in this case are apparent in the record, and there is no evidence that the plaintiff knew of 0B's fraudulent act before the lapse of one year from the date of the lawsuit in this case. Accordingly, the defendant's defense on the merits is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Formation of preserved claims

In light of the foregoing, even though it is required that, in principle, a claim that may be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that could be viewed as a fraudulent act, it is highly probable to the effect that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis for the establishment of the claim, and that the claim has already been established in the near future by virtue of such legal relationship. In cases where a claim has been created by realizing the probability in the near future, such claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da3782

As to the instant case, since 0B entered into a sales contract with HongCC at the time of the instant donation contract, there was a high probability that the legal relationship that forms the basis of imposition of capital gains tax was established, and that capital gains tax will be imposed in the near future. On February 2, 2012, the Plaintiff’s tax claim against 0B may be the preserved claim for revocation of fraudulent act.

B. Whether the fraudulent act was established

According to the above facts, it is probable that 0B made a deposit in cash to the defendant in insolvent constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is the creditor. However, the requirement of amnesty is not only at the time of the act, but also at the time of the creditor's exercise of the right of revocation (the time of closing argument at the court of fact-finding in a lawsuit seeking revocation. Thus, even if the creditor was harmed at the time of the act, if the debtor's right of revocation was not harmed at the time of the act, then the creditor's right of revocation is extinguished because it is not necessary to preserve the debtor's property by the creditor's right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102, Mar. 26, 2009). Meanwhile, in calculating the debtor's active property, the creditor's right of revocation is extinguished, barring any special circumstance, and it should be excluded from any property that can not serve as a joint security of claims. In particular, if the property is a claim, it should be reasonably included in the property where it is affirmed (see, etc.).

In light of the purport of the evidence evidence No. 4 and the entire argument, the Seoul Family Court Decision 2012d 7526, 2019, 319 (merged) held on March 26, 2013 that the Defendant ordered 0B to pay OB Won and its delay damages due to the illegal destruction of a de facto marriage between OB and the Defendant, and that the judgment became final and conclusive at that time. As such, OB acquired OB’s claim against OB won by the date of the conclusion of the argument of the instant case after February 23, 2011, and the execution of the provisional attachment No. 1 and the entire argument, the Defendant was difficult to obtain OB’s claim for damages due to such unlawful destruction of a de facto marriage between OB and the Defendant, and each of the above OB’s claim for property division was not established by 201,000,0000 won, OB20,000 won.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.