2. The defendant shall implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on April 11, 2007 by the receipt of No. 27661, with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

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

A. From November 13, 2006 to April 10, 2007, Song 000 business was operated under the trade name of 000,000 Dong 000-0 to 000,000, and the value-added tax was underreported by omitting some of the sales in 2006.

Accordingly, on July 31, 2007, the director of the tax office under the Plaintiff-affiliated tax office decided 37,413,000 won of the value-added tax for the second half year of 2006, and the amount of national taxes in arrears of 00 currently reaches 39,82,240 won including additional dues.

B. On April 10, 2007, Song 00 entered into a donation contract with the wife on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (the real estate of this case below) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant (the registration of this case in the following cases) with the Busan District Court No. 27661, Apr. 11, 2007.

Song 00 does not own any property other than the instant real property.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 4, Gap evidence 3-6, the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since Song 00 was liable to pay value-added tax for the second term portion of 2006 and underreporting value-added tax, in the near future, the real estate of this case, which is one of its sole property, was donated to the defendant, or under high probability, was created by the director of the tax office upon the notice of value-added tax payment to the defendant. Since the tax liability against Song 00 was actually established by the director of the tax office, the claim against the plaintiff's Song 00 can be the preserved claim for revocation of fraudulent act. The gift contract on the real estate of this case constitutes a fraudulent act which disposes of the only property of Song 00, and constitutes a fraudulent act which reduces the common security of the general creditors such as the plaintiff, and the defendant is presumed to have been aware of the defendant's bad faith as the wife of Song 00.

B. As to this, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the instant real estate was donated under the pretext of divorce with Song 00 on April 2007 and thus does not constitute a fraudulent act or that it was a good-faith. However, considering the fact that the Defendant was not divorced with Song 00 until now, it is difficult to view that the instant real estate donation contract does not constitute a piracy or that the Defendant entered into a gift contract with respect to the instant real estate in good faith.

C. Therefore, the contract of donation concerning the instant real estate between the Defendant and Song 00 should be revoked by fraudulent act, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the instant registration to the Plaintiff by restitution to the original state.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.