2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

The following facts may be acknowledged by taking into account the respective descriptions of Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the overall purport of the pleading, and there shall be no counter-proofs:

(a) a default of national taxes by suchB;

1) The Plaintiff: (a) on July 5, 201, 2006 corporate tax forCC (hereinafter “CC”).

OO,OO,OO,OO, OO, and 1 year 206 value-added taxO, OO, OO, OO, and OO on July 31, 201, respectively, notified that the payment was made on July 31, 201. However, the Plaintiff did not pay the tax. On August 10, 201, the Plaintiff was an oligopolistic shareholder of theCC and the representative director, BB.

On September 1, 201, 2006, OOO, OO, OO, OO, OO, and OOO for the second taxpayer designated on September 1, 201. However, 2007, OO,OO,OO, andOB did not perform the said second tax liability.

2) The Plaintiff: (a) on May 1, 2012, 2006, with respect to the global income taxO,OO, andOOO on the basis of the recognized merchant data based on the results of the tax investigation onCC; and (b) on May 31, 2012, with the due date for payment on May 31, 2012.

6. 1.OO,O,O, and global income tax for 2007, as well as O,O, andOO for global income tax for 2008, respectively. < Amended by Act No. 11213, Dec. 2012>

6. 30. A notice of tax payment was given by the due date, but such notice was not paid by the said BB.

The amount of delinquent taxes on June 14, 2013, which was the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit, is the total amount of OO,OO, andOO, as shown in the following table, except for national taxes paid for the public sale of the SO-O-O-O-O-S-type SO-Eup in Sejong-si, Sejong-si, Sejong-si, and the amount of delinquent taxes on June 14, 2013, which was the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit:

(b) An act of disposal of real estate, cash donation, etc. by suchB;

1) On April 18, 201, in Sejong-si, OO-O-O-O-O or O-O-type on its possession on May 17, 201; after completing the registration of ownership transfer on May 17, 201, in relation to the purchase price, in accordance with the Defendant’s Daejeon DF Mono-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-B-O- of the same year, the Defendant’s wife on May 20, 201, whose purchase price is KRW O andO-O-O-O-O-O-O

The head of Tong (Account No.: OOOOOOOO and OOOOOOOOOOOOOO) divided into OO, OO,O,O,OO, orOOO (hereinafter each of the above donations is referred to as "first gift").

2) In addition, on June 23, 2011, in order to sell O-O-OE apartment 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-O-O, the purchase price was paid as one of its FF bank GGdong branch passbooks (Account Number: OOOO-OO-O-O-O-O-O) on July 30, 201 and deposited the Defendant HF II branch passbook (Account Number: OOO-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). The first and the second donations collectively referred to as "each of the instant donations".

2. Determination

A. Determination on whether a fraudulent act constitutes a fraudulent act

(i)the existence of preserved claims;

A) In principle, it is required that a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be seen as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that the legal relationship, which serves as the basis of the establishment of the claim at the time of the fraudulent act, comes into existence, and that the claim is established in the near future by such legal relationship. In the near future, where a claim has been established with its probability realizing in the near future, such claim may also

As to this case, the following circumstances recognized by the above evidence, i.e., this case

For the corporate tax ofCC, the year to which it belongs is 206 and the date of establishment of the tax liability is December 31, 2006.

c) For each year to which value-added tax belongs, each tax liability becomes effective as 1 January 2006 and 1 January 2007.

In fact, on June 30, 2006 and June 30, 2007, and in relation to the default of such corporate tax, BB is an excess.

On May 12, 2011, the tax investigation onCC, which was a shareholder and representative director, began on May 12, 201, and the basic national tax.

According to Article 39 of the Act, investors who are liable for secondary tax liability are legally purified, which has been long-standing.

In full view of the facts thatCC’s oligopolistic shareholder and its representative director, at the time of each of the instant donations to the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s oligopolistic shareholder and the Plaintiff’s representative director, had not yet occurred, but all of the legal requirements, which form the basis of the claim, have been met at the time of the first donation, and the Plaintiff acquired the tax claim as a result of the second tax payment notice within 4 months from the date of the first donation. As such, it is reasonable to deem that there was a high probability as to the fact that the secondary tax liability would have been established in the near future at the time of each of the instant donations, and thereafter, it is probable that the Plaintiff’s secondary tax liability would have been established in the near future by the second tax liability. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s second tax liability against B based on the second tax liability, which is assumed as the representative, could have been realized in the near future.

B) The Defendant asserts that the additional tax should be excluded from the Plaintiff’s global income tax claim against BB. However, when the obligee exercises the obligee’s right of revocation, it cannot, in principle, exercise the obligee’s right of revocation in excess of his claim amount, and at this time, the obligee’s claim amount includes the interest or delay damages incurred after the fraudulent act and the end of arguments in fact-finding proceedings. Moreover, the additional dues and increased additional dues under Article 21(2) of the National Tax Collection Act are the kind of incidental tax imposed in the meaning of the interest on the unpaid portion if national tax is not paid by the due date, and the amount naturally arises and is determined by Articles 21 and 22 of the same Act if national tax is not paid by the due date, the amount of the tax claim amount includes the additional dues and increased additional dues arising from the time when the obligee’s right of revocation is recognized as the preserved claim. Accordingly, the Defendant’

2) Whether the debtor's financial status (insolvent) is insolvent

A) The debtor's small assets

(1) In determining whether an obligor’s insolvency, which is the requirement to exercise the obligee’s right of revocation, was the subject of a fraudulent act, it is necessary in principle that the act was committed prior to the occurrence of an act that can be deemed as a fraudulent act. However, at the time of such fraudulent act, there is a high probability that the legal relationship, which is the basis of the establishment of the obligation, has already been established at the time of such fraudulent act, and that the obligation should be established in the near future, and in the near future, the obligation should be included in the obligor’

The gift (2) of this case, each of the gift of this case to the plaintiff at the time constituted a legal relationship that serves as the basis for establishing the tax claim of this case against the plaintiff, and there was a high probability of the fact that the tax liability of this case is established in the nearest future, and that the tax liability of this case was actually established. As seen earlier, the fact that the taxpayer was actually liable for the tax liability of this case is as follows: OO, OO,OO,OO, andOO, excluding additional dues among the amount of the tax in arrears of the OO, OO, O, and OO, O, O, O, 200 (O,O, O, O, £« + + O, O, O, O, and OO.

+O,OO,OO,OO(O), + AO(O,O, andO) + O, O, and O(O, O,O, andO + O,O,O, andO(O, O,O, andO)’s principal obligation should be included in the total assessment of the obligor’s small property at the time of each gift of this case.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the femaleB’s small property at the time of each gift of this case was carried out in the OO, OO, and OO.

B) The debtor's active property

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 8, and 9, and the real estate appraisal results and the overall purport of the pleadings by KR. At the time of each of the instant donations, the active property of B at the time of each of the instant donations is O, OO, OO, OO,OO, andOO as of May 20, 201, which were the date of the first donation, as of July 30, 201, the date of the second donation.

C) Sub-decision

As seen earlier, femaleB’s passive property is an OO, OO, orOO, while active property is at the time of the first donation, it is reasonable to view that the passive property was in excess of the obligation exceeding the active property at the time of the second donation, and that the insolvent condition of such OB does not change even as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case.

3) The establishment of fraudulent act

According to the above facts, it was highly probable that a tax investigation conducted with respect toCC, which was an oligopolistic shareholder and the representative director, was conducted, and the amount of corporate tax, etc. is to be imposed. In such a case, since it is impossible to pay corporate tax, etc., it is eventually anticipated that it would not be paid by the oligopolistic shareholder and the representative director, the defendant, who is the wife, as well as the defendant. This cash donation constitutes a fraudulent act as an act of disposal of property that harms the joint security of the general creditor, barring any special circumstance, and such cash donation is presumed to be harmful to the creditor, and further, the defendant, who is a beneficiary, is presumed to be a beneficiary.

Therefore, each gift contract of this case shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant shall be entitled to compensation for value to the plaintiff, and the sum of each gift of this case shall be OO,OO,OOO, and the judgment of this court shall become final and conclusive.

The duty to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the date of full payment to the date of full payment.

(2) the Corporation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.