A. The sales contract concluded between the defendant and the ○○ Industries Co., Ltd. on November 22, 2007 is revoked.

B. The defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by the Busan District Court Branch of Busan District Court on January 17, 2008 as of January 17, 2008.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions and arguments of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-2, 2-3, 4-1 through 6, Gap evidence 6-1, 2-7, and Eul evidence 9.

A. From December 5, 1989, ○○ Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “foreign company”) goes bankrupt and is dissolved on February 12, 2008, and the Defendant is a director of the non-party company holding 76,000 shares of the non-party company (19%) as the representative director of the non-party company and the non-party company's director of the non-party company.

B. With respect to each real estate listed in the separate list owned by the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as the "each real estate of this case"), the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of creation of a mortgage of this case") was completed under the name of the defendant on the grounds of a sales contract dated August 16, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "sale contract of this case") with the maximum debt amount of KRW 850 million, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case was completed under the name of the defendant, ○○ Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "○○ Trade") on September 7, 2007, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of KRW 30 million with the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million, and the registration of the establishment of the ownership (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of the ownership of this case") under the name of the defendant on the grounds of the purchase contract dated 22, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "sale contract of this case").

C. Meanwhile, the content of the instant sales contract was that the non-party company sold each of the instant real estate to the Defendant at KRW 700 million, but in lieu of payment of the price, the amount of the secured debt against the Defendant was extinguished, and the Defendant was to take over KRW 200 million of the secured debt against ○ trade.

D. The non-party company did not pay the value-added tax of KRW 315,852,648 (including additional tax of KRW 3,745,288) and the value-added tax of KRW 242,003.203 (including additional tax of KRW 3,505,910) for May 31, 2008, which was the first time limit for payment of the value-added tax of KRW 315,852,648 (including additional tax of KRW 3,745,288) and the additional tax of KRW 242,03.203 (including additional tax of KRW 3,505,910), which was the first time limit for payment on March 31, 2008, which was the second time limit for payment of the value-added tax of KRW 100 (hereinafter referred to as the "○○○○ (including additional tax of KRW 2,978,000).

E. As of May 31, 2007, the officially announced value as of May 31, 2007 is KRW 99,069,000 [the real estate value of KRW 466 square meters x 7.10,000] + (the real estate value of KRW 2.52 square meters x 552 square meters x 5.85,000 square meters) + (the real estate of KRW 3.188 square meters x 6.34,000) + (the real estate of KRW 4.24 square meters x 5,000 square meters x 5.266 square meters) + (the real estate of KRW 5.46 square meters x 526,000) + (the real estate of KRW 6.526,000)]; or

F. At the time of the registration of ownership transfer, the non-party company was in excess of its obligation.

2. Determination on cancellation of mortgage contract and request for cancellation of registration of establishment of mortgage

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From August 16, 2007 to 2007, the Defendant did not have any other income such as working as an employee in the non-party company; the non-party company transferred KRW 100 million to the Defendant on August 16, 2007 and remitted the amount to the non-party company again on the same day; and the fact that the deposit of the representative director of the non-party company and the Defendant is in a relationship of relationship between the non-party company and the Defendant, it is evident that the Defendant’s claim for loans worth KRW 600 million as the secured claim of the non-party-mortgage is a false claim; thus, the mortgage contract of this case between the Defendant and the non-party company constitutes a fraudulent act.

B. Determination

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 to 12-2, Gap evidence No. 15, the defendant remitted 600 million won to the non-party company on August 16, 2007. The above money was transferred to the non-party company 461 million won on the same day, 30 million won remitted by the non-party company on August 13, 2007, and 10 million won remitted on August 16, 2007, and 90 billion won remitted on August 16, 2007, and 70 billion won transferred on August 16, 2007 to the non-party company 1 to 70 billion won, and the defendant's above evidence Nos. 1 to 300 million won on the non-party company 1 to 60 billion won on the non-party company's own as the non-party company's head of the non-party company's head of the non-party company and the non-party company's head of the non-party company 1 to 2.

3. Determination as to a claim for cancellation of a sales contract and cancellation of ownership transfer registration

A. Formation of preserved claims

1) In principle, a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation should have arisen before an obligor performs a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. However, at the time of the juristic act, there is a high probability that the legal relationship has already been established at the time of the juristic act, and that the claim is created in the near future, and in a case where a claim has been created due to the realization of the probability in the near future, such claim may also become a preserved claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da53173, Aug. 19, 2005).

2) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the non-party company’s liability to pay value-added tax for the second period of February 2007 and January 2008 was established on December 31, 2007 and March 31, 2008, which is the end of the taxable period. The non-party company’s secondary liability to pay value-added tax for the second period of March 2007, 2007, which was established on March 31, 2008, when the ○○○○ Accounting was over the payment deadline for the value-added tax, was established on March 31, 2008. However, since the non-party company and ○○○○ Accounting was engaged in the manufacturing business of the new sort of products, the basic legal relationship of the taxation claim of this case was already formed prior to the sales contract of this case, and it was highly probable that the tax claim of this case was subject to revocation of all the tax claim of this case.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

The fact that the non-party company had been in excess of its obligation at the time of entering into the sales contract of this case, the officially announced price as of May 31, 2007 reaches a total of KRW 99,69,069 (i.e., the total market price of each real estate at the time of the sales contract of this case would be at least KRW 900,000,000), and the fact that the total amount of each collateral security obligation established on each real estate of this case is KRW 700,000 ( KRW 500,000 + KRW 200,000,000) as of the time of the registration of transfer of ownership of this case, is presumed as above. Thus, the sales contract of this case with the sales price of KRW 70,00,000 is a contract that sells each real estate of this case at least KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000).

C. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

Although the defendant alleged that he did not know the property status of the non-party company at the time of the contract of this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, rather, as seen earlier, the defendant was in charge of the ○○○ and the director Lee Chang-soo, the representative director of the non-party company, and was engaged in money transactions several times with the non-party company, and the non-party company delayed payment of interest of KRW 600 million borrowed from the defendant, notified the defendant that he would exercise the right to collateral security, and transferred the real estate of this case in lieu of the repayment of borrowed money, etc., it seems that the defendant was fully aware that the non-party company was in excess of the debt at the time of the contract

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the sales contract of this case concluded between the defendant and the non-party company should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of each transfer of ownership as stated in Paragraph (b) of Section 1 of this case, which was completed for each real estate of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.