2. The defendant will implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the share of 2/9 shares in ○○○-si, ○○○○-dong, 457-66, 775, due to the revocation of fraudulent act.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. Kim ○ has a tax claim equivalent to the above delinquent tax amount (hereinafter “instant tax claim claim”) against Kim ○ School in arrears with total of KRW 164,702,540,00,00 total global income tax, value-added tax, and wage and salary income tax (final payment deadline September 30, 2007) attributed to 205 and 2006.

B. On June 3, 2015, the deceased Kim Jong-ro (hereinafter “the Deceased”) owned ○○○○○○○○, 457-66, and 775 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) and died, and his wife, the Defendant, his children, and his children jointly succeeded to 3:2:2 shares.

C. On June 3, 2015, the Defendant, Kim Jong-chul, Kim ○, and Kim ○-sung entered into an agreement on the division of inherited property with the content that the instant land is owned solely by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant division agreement”). Accordingly, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the instant division agreement regarding the instant land.

D. At the time of the instant split-off consultation, Kim ○, not only at the time of the instant split-off consultation, is the insolvent of debt excess.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

According to the above facts, at the time of the division consultation of this case, the plaintiff had the tax claim of this case against Kim ○, and the above claim is the preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation.

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

The agreement on division of inherited property is to confirm the reversion of inherited property by performing all or part of the inherited property, which is a separate ownership of each inheritor, or by performing as a new co-ownership relationship, with respect to the inherited property, which is a provisional co-inheritors upon commencement of inheritance, and therefore becomes subject to the exercise of the right to revoke a fraudulent act. Meanwhile, barring any special circumstance, the debtor's act of selling real property, which is one of his/her sole property, and replacing it with money which is easy to consume or transferring it to another person free of charge, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring any special circumstance. Thus, even in cases where the debtor in excess of his/her obligation has reduced joint security against the general creditor by giving up his/her right to his/her inherited property upon consultation on division of inherited property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29

As seen earlier, the joint security for general creditors was reduced by the waiver of their respective shares of inheritance regarding the land of this case by Kim ○, an obligor, who has already been in excess of the debt, upon the split-off agreement in this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the instant split-off agreement constitutes a fraudulent act against other creditors, such as the Plaintiff, etc., the obligor Kim ○, was recognized, and the Defendant’s bad faith, the beneficiary, is presumed.

C. Judgment on the defendant's argument

1) The defendant's assertion

The Deceased, including KRW 192,00,000,000,000,000 including KRW 100,000,000,000, which received a loan of the instant land as collateral, was opened in front of the deceased, and Kim ○ has used it as the business capital to Kim ○○, a partner, and obtained special benefits equivalent to the same amount. Meanwhile, the Defendant contributed to a disease beyond the extent of ordinary support, such as the Defendant’s burden of medical expenses incurred by the Deceased who was receiving medical treatment for a long time at the hospital. In addition, the Defendant acquired the above loan obligation upon the sole inheritance of the instant land. Accordingly, considering the special benefits of Kim ○ and the Defendant’s contributory portion, the instant agreement division does not constitute a fraudulent act, as there is no specific share of inheritance in

2) Determination

Even if a debtor in excess of his/her obligation gives up his/her right to inherited property in consultation on division of inherited property, and consequently a joint security for general creditors has been reduced, it shall not be revoked as a fraudulent act, unless the result of division of property is deemed to fall short of the extent equivalent to the debtor's specific share of inheritance, and even if the result falls short of the extent equivalent to the specific share of inheritance, the scope of revocation as a fraudulent act shall be limited to the deficient portion. In such cases, the circumstances that the specific share of inheritance is different from the statutory share of inheritance, such as the existence of a designated share of inheritance, contributory portion, special benefit, etc., should be asserted and proved by the debtor or beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the results of each financial transaction information conference on ○○○○ Branch and Nonghyup Bank, the deceased was issued a check with a face value of KRW 192 million at the ○○○○○○ Branch on September 20, 2007, and the fact that on September 21, 2007, Kim○○○○○ Branch issued a check with a face value of KRW 192 million on his own, and that on September 21, 2007, it was recognized that the deceased presented the above check to the ○○○○○ Branch Office of the Agricultural Cooperative.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Kim ○ does not have an endorsement on the said one’s check, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that Kim ○ branch and Kim Kim ○ branch were in the same business relationship. Thus, the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the deceased donated the above check to Kim ○ branch as alleged by the defendant, and that Kim ○ branch, who received it, transferred it to his partner Kim ○ branch for the purpose of the gas station fund.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant specially supported the deceased as much as it is necessary to adjust the legal inheritance portion, or specially contributed to the maintenance or increase of the deceased's property.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

D. Sub-determination

Ultimately, the part equivalent to 2/9 shares in the land of this case, among the division consultation of this case, shall be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, and the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership due to the revocation of fraudulent act with respect to 2/9 shares in the land of this case, on the original state.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.