2. The defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed under No. 85293 on December 30, 2005 by the 00 district court 00 branch court 000 registry office with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to Nonparty Kim 00.

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

A. The Plaintiff’s taxation claim against Nonparty Kim 00

(1) 소외 김00는 0산 0구 00동 000-00에서 00창호라는 상호로 샷시·창호업을 하고 있는데, 김00는 위 사업장의 운영과 관련하여 부가가치세 2003년 제2기, 2005년 제1기 과세기간분 신고시에 매입세액 부당공제의 방법 및 종합소득세 2003년 과세연도분 신고시에 필요경비 부당공제의 방법 등으로 국세를 과소납부하였다.

(2) As of January 31, 2006, the Plaintiff-affiliated 00 issued a revised notice of KRW 8,306,90 of value-added tax for the second taxable period of 2003, global income tax for the taxable period of 2003, KRW 20,229,200 of value-added tax for the first taxable period of 1 year of 2005 as of June 30, 2006, KRW 13,643,380 of value-added tax for the first taxable period of 205 as of July 31, 2007, KRW 1,920,890 of value-added tax for the first taxable period of 1 year of 205, KRW 49,631,040 of value-added tax for the first taxable period of 205, and Kim00 did not pay it.

(3) In particular, on December 26, 2005, Kim 00 recognized that the input tax was received as a false tax invoice with respect to the first taxable period portion during the 1st taxable period of 2005, and written a written confirmation.

B. Disposal of Kim 00's property

(1) On December 30, 2005, Kim 00 sold the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) to the Defendant, Cho Jong-soo on December 30, 200, and on December 30, 2005, the ownership transfer registration was completed as of December 30, 200 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 85293 on December 30, 2005. Meanwhile, the instant real estate sales amount was paid as the money that the Defendant borrowed as security, and the interest on the said loan was paid by Kim 0

(2) At the time of the above sale, there was no special property other than the instant real property to Kim 00.

Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 (including additional numbers), Eul 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on whether to exercise the right of revocation

A. Determination as to the existence of a preserved claim

In principle, it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, at the time of such fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that form the basis of the formation of the claim, and there is high probability that the claim should be established in the near future by such legal relations, and in the near future, where a claim has been created because of its feasibility in the near future, such claim may also become a failed

According to the above facts, the debtor Kim 00, before the act of selling and selling the real estate in this case, under payment of national taxes by means of unfair deduction of input tax amount, etc., and the act of selling and selling the real estate in this case, 49,631,040 won, including value-added tax, was imposed upon Kim 00 after the correction resolution of 00 years old book. Thus, there was a high probability about the fact that at the time of the act of selling and selling the real estate in this case, there was a legal relationship which is the basis for establishing a tax claim, and that there was a high probability about the fact that the tax claim should be established based on the near future legal relationship, and that there was a high probability that the tax claim was established in the near future, and thus, there was

B. Determination as to the establishment of fraudulent act

(1) According to the above basic facts, it can be known that Kim 00, the debtor, under payment of national taxes, sold the real estate of this case, which is one of his sole property prior to the imposition of the sum of 49,631,040 won, including value-added tax, by a resolution of correction. Such act of selling and selling real estate of this case under Kim 00 shall be deemed to have harmed his creditors, barring any special circumstances, and the intention of the deceased Kim 00, which is the debtor, is presumed to be presumed to be the debtor's intention of death, the plaintiff, the creditor of Kim 00, can claim the cancellation of the real estate sales contract of this

(2) In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that, at the time of the instant real estate sale and purchase of real estate, Kim 00,000 won was granted a loan of KRW 64,73,00 from 00 at the time of the instant real estate sale and purchase of the instant real estate to Kim 00,000 won, and that the Defendant did not have any intention to harm the Defendant. However, in full view of the following: Kim 00 and the Defendant’s relationship, the timing of the instant real estate sale and purchase, the source of the purchase price, and the fact that the Defendant paid the interest on the loans that the Defendant received for the payment of the purchase price at the Kim 00,00, it cannot be said that the Defendant had no intention to harm

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the cancellation of the instant real estate sales contract between the Defendant, a fraudulent act, and Kim 00, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the previous registration on the instant real estate by restitution to Kim 00. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.