2. The Defendants shall implement the procedure for the cancellation of registration of the registration of the additional branch court of the Incheon District Court with respect to the shares of 1/2 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to Nonparty LCC, as well as the registration of the cancellation of the registration of each right transfer claim completed by the receipt OOOO on December 7, 2013.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

2. Applicable provisions of Acts: Article 208 (3) 1 and Article 257 of the Civil Procedure Act;

[Attachment]

Cheongwon of the Gu

1. Status of parties;

A. The plaintiff has a tax claim of KRW 342,204,330 on behalf of the non-party delinquent taxpayer (hereinafter referred to as "non-party delinquent taxpayer").

B. Defendant 1 KimA and Defendant 2 KimB have the honor to Nonparty 1’s default.

2. Establishment of taxable circumstances and preserved claims;

(a) Details of taxation;

On April 19, 2013, the non-party in arrears transferred the OO-Eup O-type land and reported KRW 307,392,583 to the non-party in arrears.

However, the non-party delinquent taxpayer paid only 18,00,000 won among the above amount of tax and did not pay the remaining amount of tax. On August 1, 2014, the head of the Dongdaemun-gu Tax Office under the plaintiff's control notified 303,91,50 won in addition to the above amount of tax unpaid. However, although the non-party delinquent did not pay it up to now, the non-party delinquent taxpayer did not pay it up to now, there is a delinquent amount of 342,204,30 won (including additional amount of 38,292,780) as of the date of lawsuit, and the additional

B. Establishment of preserved claims

Since the above liability to pay capital gains tax and additional tax on non-party delinquent taxpayers was established before October 31, 2013, which is the date of the fraudulent act in this case, there is no problem in becoming a preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation. Moreover, in cases where a capital gains tax claim is recognized as a preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation, it is consistent with the Supreme Court's consistent position that the amount of such claim includes the additional dues and additional dues incurred until the time of closing argument in fact-finding proceedings after the fraudulent act in this case (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007), and 342,204,330 won including additional dues, are all the preserved claim of this case.

3. Fraudulent act;

(a) Provisional registration of ownership transfer claim based on the reservation for trade;

The non-party delinquent after the occurrence of delinquency in capital gains tax, could expect the plaintiff's disposition on default, such as seizure of his property, and on December 17, 2013, Defendant 1 KimA, Defendant 2 KimB, who is his own children, completed the provisional registration of ownership transfer right claim (the purchase and sale reservation as of October 31, 2013, which was the cause of the registration), thereby making it considerably difficult for the plaintiff to take the disposition on default.

(b) The deepening of debts in excess;

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

At the time of fraudulent act, the non-party delinquent taxpayer held active and small property as shown in the table 1 below.

positive and negative property at the time of the fraudulent act

Classification

Details

Values

Jinay

guidance.

△△63,743,868

Real estate

OO also OOOO-O OO heading

9,778,340

Deposit

O Bank

171,314,584

Schedule 2 see Statement of Account of Obank

Deposit

O Bank

0

Deposit

O Bank

0

The active property system;

181,092,924

National Tax Liabilities

Amount of capital gains tax determined;

244,836,792

Date when the tax liability comes into existence, 201.4.30

In the case of small-sized property system

244,836,792

Schedule 2. Statement of Account in Obank

(unit: won)

No.

Account Number

Amount

Jinay

(Date of Termination)

1

OOO-O-O-OOOO

18,069,831

November 18, 2013

2

OOO-O-O-OOOO

0

3

OOO-O-O-OOOO

0

4

OOO-O-O-OOOO

7,004,236

November 18, 2013

5

OOO-O-O-OOOO

0

6

OOO-O-O-OOOO

0

7

OOO-O-O-OOOO

0

8

OOO-O-O-OOOO

0

9

OOO-O-O-OOOO

42,699,232

(2014.024)

10

OOO-O-O-OOOO

12,043

November 18, 2013

11

OOO-O-O-OOOO

109,101

November 18, 2013

12

OOO-O-O-OOOO

9,758,270

November 21, 2013

13

OOO-O-O-OOOO

6,580,835

November 28, 2013

14

OOO-O-O-OOOO

8,411,075

November 28, 2013

15

OOO-O-O-OOOO

28,342,901

November 26, 2013

16

OOO-O-O-OOOO

7,396,131

November 28, 2013

17

OOO-O-O-OOOO

11,341,645

November 21, 2013

18

OOO-O-O-OOOO

0

19

OOO-O-O-OOOO

9,273,683

November 21, 2013

20

OOO-O-O-OOOO

11,862,822

November 21, 2013

21

OOO-O-O-OOOO

6,305,063

November 21, 2013

22

OOO-O-O-OOOO

4,147,716

November 21, 2013

guidance.

171,314,584

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

As seen earlier, Nonparty 1 had already been in excess of the obligation as of October 31, 2013, which was the date of the instant fraudulent act, and had reduced the real property value of the instant real estate by setting up and granting the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer to Defendant 1 KimA and Defendant 2 KimB, who is one of them, on the instant real estate, which was the standard market price (commercial building and officetel standard market price) 9,778,340 at the time. Accordingly, Nonparty 1 would have further deepened the debt excess of Nonparty 2.

4. The intention of an injury.

The non-party in arrears anticipates the plaintiff's disposition on default, such as seizure of his property, after the occurrence of delinquency in capital gains tax, and concludes a pre-sale agreement with the defendants who are related parties to the real estate in this case to evade this, and accordingly, the defendants have made a registration of ownership transfer right claim in the future. The non-party in arrears knew that he would prejudice the plaintiff as a tax payer at the time of the above fraudulent act.

5. Bad faith of the defendant

Defendant 1 KimA and Defendant 2 KimB have been fully aware of the status of excess of the delinquent taxpayer's debt and the intention to commit suicide as the "child of the non-party in arrears". In addition, in the event that the intention of the non-party in arrears is recognized as the intention of the non-party in arrears, the defendants' bad faith is presumed. Therefore, the defendants have to prove special circumstances that can be seen in good faith as to fraudulent act.

6. Period of exclusion;

In the course of tracking and investigating a delinquent taxpayer on February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff became aware of the delinquent taxpayer’s fraudulent act only after confirming the details of the delinquent taxpayer’s property, the register of the register of the delinquent taxpayer, family relations, etc., and thus, five years from the date of the fraudulent act, and one year from the date of becoming aware of the cause of revocation of the fraudulent act, and thus, the instant lawsuit was filed within the exclusion period

7. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the act of the non-party in arrears completing the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer in the name of the defendants constitutes a fraudulent act committed while being aware that it would prejudice the general creditors including the plaintiff, who are the tax claims, and the defendants also have been fully aware of such facts. Therefore, as stated in the purport of the claim, the plaintiff cancelled the trade reservation entered into between the non-party in arrears and the defendants as to the real estate stated in the attached list as a fraudulent act, and thereby, it would result in the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the registration of the right