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

Cheong-gu Office

"A sales contract concluded on June 5, 2008 (hereinafter "the sales contract of this case") between the defendant and the non-party B with respect to OO-O-O-Eup O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O (hereinafter "the real property of this case") was revoked, and the defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration completed on August 1, 2008 with respect to the real property of this case as No. 13916 (hereinafter "the registration of ownership transfer of

1. Basic facts

“A. The Plaintiff’s subordinate superintendent of the tax office, etc. issued a notice to Nonparty B of the determination of a total of 8 national taxes (hereinafter “each of the national taxes of this case”) with the items of value-added tax, global income tax, etc. as listed below, but the largestB did not pay each of the national taxes of this case until now.” See 2 pages of the decision.

B. On June 5, 2008, the largestB entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendant, a sales agent, for the instant real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on August 1, 2008.

C. The Plaintiff, at the stage of disposition on deficits of national taxes, shall inquire of the details of the delinquent taxpayer's property and examine whether the delinquent taxpayer's property exists property subject to seizure using the internal computerized data database inside the National Tax Service. On October 23, 2008, Nov. 28, 2008, and May 18, 2009, the Plaintiff inquired of all the details of each of the national taxes of this case, and issued each disposition on deficits (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition on deficits of this case") along with computerized data base, etc., along with the fact that the largestB transferred the real property of this case on May 11, 2009, and the document prepared on May 18, 2009, written by the Plaintiff stating that the largestB had no property from the largestB. [The grounds for recognition], Gap 1-4, evidence No. 6, evidence No. 7, and evidence No. 5], the purport of the entire pleadings, each of the evidence No. 5.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The defendant's assertion

Since the Plaintiff sufficiently examined the current status of the largestB’s property at the time of each of the instant disposals, it appears that around November 28, 2008, or around September 7, 2010, the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of fraudulent act or the cause for revocation, as the Plaintiff notified the largestB of the payment of capital gains tax following the transfer of the instant real estate. However, the instant lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act was filed after one year has elapsed from the said lawsuit, and is unlawful.

(2) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the instant transfer registration was made in the course of each disposition on deficits, but the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the instant sales contract, the grounds for registration, constitutes a fraudulent act, following the fact that the Defendant, who was the purchaser, was aware on May 23, 2013, of the fact that it was the largest BB’s subject through the tracking and tracking process of concealed property, and thus, the instant lawsuit was brought to comply with the exclusion period.

B. Determination

"The date when the creditor, who is the starting point of the exclusion period in the exercise of the right of revocation, becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act while knowing that the creditor would prejudice the creditor. This is not sufficient to know the fact that the debtor performed a disposal act of the property, and further, it is required to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that the debtor had an intent to deceive the debtor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102, Mar. 26, 2009)." According to the above basic facts, the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the most BB sold the real property of this case, which is the only property of this case, before each disposition of this case was made. In particular, around May 18, 2009, the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the last B sold the real property of this case, which is the only property of this case, by entering into the sales contract of this case, at least the sale contract of this case around May 18, 2009.

Therefore, the lawsuit of revocation of the instant fraudulent act filed on June 3, 2013, which had been filed on May 18, 2009 after one year from May 18, 2009, is unlawful as the period of exclusion expires.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.