B. On May 13, 2009, and July 6, 2009, each gift agreement entered into between Chapter BB and Defendant leF with respect to KRW 00,000, shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 000.

C. The gift agreement concluded between Section B and Defendant ChapterGG on January 12, 2010 shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 000,00.

(d) The gift agreement concluded between Category B and Defendant H on January 12, 2010 between the two parties shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 000.

2. Defendant AA shall pay to the Plaintiff 00 won, and Defendant AFF shall be 000 won, and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of complete payment with respect to each of the KRW 000 and the KRW 5% per annum.

3. Litigation costs shall be borne by the Defendants.

1. Judgment on the right to be preserved

(a) A taxation claim;

(1) Nonparty B received a total of KRW 000 as follows as a honorarium from Nonparty II to assist Nonparty II to take over the management rights of a school foundation’s JJB.

(2) The Plaintiff acquired the income tax claim of KRW 00 on December 31, 2009 and KRW 000 on December 31, 2010, when the taxable period for the instant money was terminated against BB (the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000, income tax of KRW 000 on January 31, 201, when the payment period was as of January 31, 201, and the payment period was as of August 31, 201).

(3) Chapter BB does not pay the above 00 won among the income tax accrued in 2009, and 000 won among the income tax accrued in 2010, and 000 won in total.

[Based on Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 14 evidence 7, and 9 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

(1) Chapter BB is liable to pay income tax and has the following tax liabilities to the Plaintiff as a taxpayer:

(2) In addition, each of the above taxation claims against the Plaintiff Category BB is the right to be preserved against the Defendants.

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

For this reason, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the transfer contract of the school juristic person JJA was concluded and invalid without authority. As such, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff did not acquire tax claims with respect to the amount that the Plaintiff received from the last II, but the taxable income is deemed to have the ability to pay taxes in light of the economic aspect, and thus, it is sufficient to deem that the taxable income has the capacity to pay taxes, and the legal assessment of the causal relationship in which the income was derived is lawful and effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu123, May 28, 1985). As long as the Category BB received the above amount as the last II and manages it in reality, the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion is without merit.

2. Determination on the claim for revocation of fraudulent act

(a) Occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;

(i) the conclusion of the gift contract and the occurrence of preserved claims;

Category B donated checks and cash received from the above II to the defendant AB, who is the following. The Category BB donated the checks received from the above II to the defendant Fapen, who is the following. On January 12, 2010, the defendant B donated the total amount of KRW 000 won to the defendant BG and HH, each of which was 00 won in each of the above listed assets in the separate sheet, and the defendant CG and HH were not likely to have been established at the time of the expiration of the pertinent taxation period (the total transfer price of real estate at KRW 00,00, the total amount of the secured claims in the name of the Nonghyup Co., Ltd., and the obligation to return the lease claims in each of the above real estate, and the obligation to pay for the tax claims in the future, including each other, are likely to have been established at the time of the expiration of the pertinent taxation period, and the obligation to pay for the tax claims in each of the above 20th EquiG and H 1/2.

(ii) the insolvency and intention of the chapter BB;

In principle, when the obligor continues to dispose of several properties, it should be determined based on whether each act causes insolvency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da69026, Apr. 27, 2001). However, when there are special circumstances that should be viewed as one act, it should be determined collectively as to whether the other party to the disposition is identical, and when determining whether there are special circumstances, the other party to the disposition is in close vicinity, and whether the other party and the obligor are in special relationship with each other, and whether the motive or opportunity for each disposition is equal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da7795, Jul. 22, 2005). The above factors revealed by the evidence mentioned above are as follows, i.e., the other party to each donation contract at issue is no B, and i.e., the other party to the second Chapter B, at the lowest level of cash contribution to the Defendants, and ii Chapter II, at which the Defendants were given the first one kind of cash.

From the perspective of PP’s active property, and Category BB had a total of 00 won, including cash and credit that were received from the largest II as of May 12, 2009. The small property of Category B is limited to 00 won, and Category BB had a total of 00 won under each of the above gift agreements (i.e., KRW 00 +00 +000 +000 won +000) as the above gift amount was donated to the Defendants, the Plaintiff could not seek restitution from the Defendants in bad faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du000) as of May 12, 200) exceeded the aforementioned positive property [3B], and omitted from the status of insolvency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da1681, Mar. 16, 207).

3) Determination as to the defendants' defense

The Defendants, and Defendant AA and Defendant FF imposed gift tax on the Defendants, and the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the gift contract of this case against the said Defendants are contradictory to each other, and contradictory to each other, and the Defendants paid gift tax in accordance with the Plaintiff’s gift tax imposition disposition, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case was abused rights contrary to the Plaintiff’s good faith principle. However, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case was inconsistent with the purpose of the imposition disposition of gift tax and the revocation disposition of fraudulent act, the relevant laws and effects, etc., and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case was to inflict pain on the other party and inflict losses on the other party,

(b) Methods and scope of reinstatement;

(i) the method of reinstatement;

When the debtor's fraudulent act cancellation and restitution claim are acknowledged, and the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser are obliged to return the object of the fraudulent act to the debtor as restitution, and when it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the original object, the performance of the duty to restore it should compensate for the value equivalent to the value of the object of the fraudulent act, and when the beneficiary who did not have any bonds and obligations relationship with the original creditor is obliged to restore it upon the creditor's cancellation, it is recognized specifically by the law from the perspective of equity. Therefore, the obligation to compensate for the value is established when the return of the object is impossible or substantially difficult, and it is not necessary for the other party to the claim to return it, and it is impossible or possible to return the original object here.

In extremely difficult cases refers to cases where a creditor cannot expect the realization of performance from a beneficiary or a subsequent purchaser in light of social experience rules or transaction concept, rather than simply and physically impossible cases (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da4004, Jun. 11, 2009). Therefore, considering that a fraudulent act against the Defendants of Category BB is a donation of money, restitution shall be made by way of return. Thus, the Defendants are obliged to return the equivalent value of the checks and cash received from Category BB (in the case of Defendant Chapter BG and Chapter HH, not by receiving money from Category BB, even if they were to have donated the shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and according to the aforementioned evidence, it is difficult to acknowledge that the value of each real estate was considerably different from the value of each real estate indicated in the separate sheet, and that there was no special difference between the value of each real estate subject to restitution and reimbursement of KRW 281,00,000).

2) Scope of compensation for value

In case of revocation of part of a fraudulent act, and compensation for its cancellation and value shall be limited to 0G 00 won, and that amount shall be less than the smaller than the amount of the Plaintiff’s claims for preservation. At that time, the amount of the obligee’s claims shall include interest or delay damages arising up to the time of closing of argument (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da42711, Oct. 25, 2002). The amount of checks and cash paid from Category B at each of the gift contracts of this case shall be 00 won, and Defendant FF amount shall be 00 won, and that at each of the above 0G 000 won, the amount of each gift contract of this case shall be 00 won, and at each of the above 0G 000 won, the amount of each gift contract of which is calculated by the Defendants shall be 000 won, and at each of the 00G 000 won, 200 won, 300 won, respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.