2. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed by the receipt No. 7291 on June 8, 2009, with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list, to the above B.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On July 14, 2008, the director of the Jinju Tax Office under the Plaintiff-based tax office decided and notified on January 31, 201 as to the transfer of the land on the O26-1 land and buildings of O26-1 of O2, O26-1 of O2, and the land on the same Ri 919 and seven lots of land (hereinafter referred to as “non-party real estate”) to the non-party Seocho, and the above BB is currently liable to pay the capital gains tax to the Defendant, including the additional dues.

B. On June 5, 2009, the above B sold the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”), which is the only property he owned, to the Defendant on June 5, 2009, by determining the purchase price as an OOO, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of the Changwon District Court’s Office under Article 7291 on June 8, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle, it is highly probable that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that serve as the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established by the near future legal relations. In cases where a claim has been created by realizing the probability in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da21245, Jul. 15, 2010).

According to the facts acknowledged above, this case’s real estate had already been owned by B prior to the sale of this case’s real estate toCC, and there was a high probability that this case’s real estate was established as a basis for establishing the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax claim, and that its claim should be established in the near future in the near future. In fact, the probability was realized and the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax claim was established. Thus, it should be deemed as a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation.

Furthermore, barring special circumstances where a debtor's act of selling real estate, which is the only property of the debtor, and changing the sale into money which is easily used for consumption, is always considered as a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring special circumstances where the sale took place in order to meet the legitimate repayment to some creditors. Therefore, the debtor's intent to harm is presumed and the burden of proving that the purchaser did not have bad faith to the beneficiary is borne by the beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 66Da1535, Oct. 4, 19

In this case, as long as this case's Health Unit B had been converted into money which is the only property of this case and could be consumed by the defendant, it shall be presumed that D had committed a fraudulent act with the intent to prejudice the plaintiff who is the creditor, and it shall be presumed that D had known that D had been harmful to the plaintiff who is the creditor.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate in good faith inasmuch as the Plaintiff borrowed part of the purchase price from EE, the Defendant’s son, and purchased the instant real estate on June 5, 2009, and it could not be known whether the BB owned the instant real estate in OOO on the OO of OO, and whether the transfer income tax occurred by transferring it.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the fact that the defendant received the transfer from E on June 23, 2009, and that the defendant remitted the total amount of OOB to this B on June 23, 2009 and June 29, 2009 is recognized. However, the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to reverse the presumption that the defendant purchased the instant real estate in bad faith, and there is no other evidence to prove the defendant's assertion.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.