(a) cancel the agreement on division of inherited property concluded on March 1, 2013 between the Defendant and Nonparty B (***************) and the non-party B (*).

B. The Defendant shall implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the restoration of the title of the petition to Nonparty B.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

Cheongwon of the Gu

1. Formation of preserved claims;

(a) Relationship between the Parties;

(1) The director of the BB Tax Office and the director of the ○○○ Tax Office (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) are holding 54,616,060 won of national tax credit against the non-party in arrears B (hereinafter referred to as the “taxpayer in arrears”). (A evidence No. 1)

(2) Defendant A had the father of the defaulted taxpayer (No. 2, No. 1, N. 1, N.C.)

(b) Occurrence of taxation claims;

The plaintiff notified the delinquent taxpayer of the value-added tax and the general income tax as set forth in the table 1, but the taxpayer fails to pay it, and there is a delinquent amount of KRW 8,54,616,060 as of the date of the lawsuit. (No. 1)

C. Establishment of preserved claims

As seen in the above Table 1, the preservation claim of this case is the total of 54,616,060 won for value-added tax for the year 201, 2012 and total of 8 global income tax for the year 2012, as seen in the above Table 1, and there is a legal relationship that has already been established before March 1, 2013, which is the fraudulent act of this case and serves as the taxation requirement for the collection of taxes. Thus, there is no defect that the national tax claim of this case becomes the preserved claim.

2. Fraudulent act;

(a) Registration of ownership transfer by agreement or division of inherited property;

If a debtor in excess of his/her obligation has reduced joint security for the general creditor by giving up his/her right to his/her inherited property while holding a divided agreement on inherited property, it constitutes a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2007Da73765, Mar. 13, 2008). In this case, the non-party delinquent may anticipate the disposition on default of the plaintiff, such as seizure of his/her property after the default of national taxes, and the mother may have the right to receive inherited property upon the death of DaCC, and on March 1, 2013, he/she entered into an agreement on the division of inherited property to waive his/her entire inherited property on April 25, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "real property of this case") with respect to the registration of transfer of ownership by division of inherited property (the inheritance by agreement on March 13, 2013).

(b) bringing about excess of obligations;

(1) Active and passive property at the time of the fraudulent act

At the time of fraudulent act, the delinquent taxpayer held active and small property as shown in the table 2 below. (No. 5 of the delinquent taxpayer's property electronic data)

(2) The deepening of debt excess due to the substantial decline in property value;

It would result in a decrease in the debtor's total assets, i.e., disposal of the debtor's assets, that would result in a decrease in the debtor's assets.

It means that it is impossible to fully satisfy an obligee’s claims due to a decrease in assets or a lack of joint security already in a short condition due to the shortage of assets (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102, Mar. 26, 2009). In this case, the Nonparty had already been in excess of obligations as of March 1, 2013, the date of the fraudulent act in this case, and Defendant A, his father, a father, completed the registration of transfer of ownership through the division of inherited property among the real estate in this case, deepens the status of excess by reducing the delinquent’s total assets by completing the registration of transfer of ownership through the division of inherited property among the real estate in this case, and thereby, the Plaintiff’s claims cannot be fully satisfied (the complete certificate of registration No. 4, the complete certificate of registration No. 6, and the multi-family housing price appraisal association).

3. The intention of an injury.

The non-party in arrears predicted the plaintiff's disposition of arrears, such as the seizure of his property after the delinquency in the payment of value-added tax and global income tax, and concluded an inheritance agreement division contract with the defendant, who is a related party to his portion of inheritance among the real estate of this case, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future. The non-party in arrears knew that the non-party in arrears would prejudice the plaintiff at the time of the aforementioned fraudulent act

4. Bad faith of the defendant

(1) Supreme Court Decision 95Da51908 Decided May 23, 1997 has the burden of proving that the debtor's bad faith in a fraudulent act lawsuit is revoked.

However, the Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710 Decided April 14, 2006 ruled that "it shall be objectively and objectively supporting the fact that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of such fraudulent act, and it shall not be readily concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of such fraudulent act because only a unilateral statement of the debtor or a statement that is merely a statement of the third party, etc., and that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of such fraudulent act."

Therefore, in this case, Defendant AA should be deemed to have been fully aware of the delinquent’s excess of the delinquent’s obligation and the intention of harming the delinquent. In addition, in the case of Nonparty A’s intentional intent, the Defendants’ malicious intent is presumed to be presumed. Therefore, Defendant AA must prove the good faith.

5. Period of exclusion;

On September 6, 2016, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Defendant with respect to the instant real estate as the cause of inheritance by agreement division, upon inspecting the certificate of registration of the instant real estate on September 6, 2016, the exclusion period of five years from the date of fraudulent act and one year from the date of becoming aware of the fraudulent act was not exceeded (the entire certificate of registration No. 4);

6. Methods of reinstatement;

① As a matter of principle, the procedure for the cancellation of registration of ownership transfer completed in the name of the defendant should be enforced. However, the Supreme Court Decision 9Da53704 Decided February 25, 2000 ruled that "In addition to seeking the cancellation of registration by a person who has registered ownership in his own future or who has acquired ownership pursuant to the law, in addition to seeking the cancellation of registration in a way to restore the real name of registration, it shall be allowed to seek the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer directly against the present registered titleholder, and these legal principles shall also apply to the lawsuit for cancellation of fraudulent act." (3) The delinquent taxpayer is a person who acquired the ownership of the real estate in this case under the law of the deceased's death, (4) the delinquent taxpayer is a person who has acquired the ownership of the real estate in this case under the law, and (5) the registration procedure for ownership transfer should be followed separately after the death of the deceased.

7. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the non-party delinquent taxpayer's act of entering into a division agreement of inherited property and completing the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act knowing that it would prejudice general creditors, including the plaintiff, who are tax claims, and the defendant also should be deemed to have been fully aware of such fact. Accordingly, the plaintiff cancelled the agreement on division of inherited property entered into between the non-party delinquent taxpayer and the defendant as stated in the attached list as to the real estate in the attached list and caused the claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the recovery of the real name