2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

(Cancellation of Fraudulent Act) The Defendant and the Nonparty ○○○○○ (hereinafter in this case’s real estate) agreed on the attached list (hereinafter in this case’s real estate) and revoked the payment contract for accord and satisfaction concluded on July 20, 202. The Defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on August 20, 2002 by the Jung-gu District Court, Macheon Registry, Macheon Registry, and 35152.

A. On April 25, 2005, the director of the tax office affiliated with the Plaintiff imposed KRW 456,041,520 capital gains tax on the fact that ○○○○ on April 30, 2002, the maximum amount of 00 square meters of land 359-2 square meters in Guro-gu, Seoul, and 905.2 square meters of land and 4,313.92 square meters of land (hereinafter “the instant building”) owned by ○○○ on the part of ○○, a sale price of which is 5.5 billion won (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”).

B. On January 16, 2002, when acquiring the instant building, the maximum ○○○○ entered into a title trust agreement (hereinafter “instant title trust agreement”) with the Defendant to trust the name of the ownership of the instant real estate owned in this case, which is owned by the Defendant, to be transferred from Kim Young-young as part of the purchase price pursuant to the instant sales contract, to the Defendant, with the intent to trust the title of the ownership of the instant real estate owned in this case, to the Defendant, in order to escape the creditors from a person who is likely to be forced to be subject to compulsory execution against the property owned by the Plaintiff, due to the financial institution’s collateral obligation (the maximum amount of claims 1.6.80 million won) and the tax obligation against the Plaintiff.

C. On the other hand, on July 20, 2002, Kim Young-young paid a gold of 100 million won to Lee Jong-young, the owner of the instant real estate, and omitted the registration of ownership transfer, and transferred the instant real estate again to the least ○○○. On the other hand, on August 20, 2002, Kim Young-young completed the registration of ownership transfer, such as the written order, in the name of the defendant, according to the instant title trust agreement.

D. On the other hand, while the tax liability against the Plaintiff was 456,041,520 won, the maximum ○○○○ does not have any particular active property as of the closing date of the instant pleadings, the tax liability against the Plaintiff is in excess of the obligation (insolvent)

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap 1-8 evidence (including paper numbers), witness Kim Young-young's testimony, part of witness's most present testimony, and the purport of the whole of separate opinions

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant's transfer of ownership to the real estate in this case is deemed to have been made pursuant to the middle omitted title trust agreement between ○○ and the defendant. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that any change in real rights thereby is null and void pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4 (2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name. The ownership to the real estate in this case remains in the non-party Lee ○, the former owner on the registry. Thus, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of ownership transfer to the real estate in this case, as the plaintiff, the tax claimant against ○○○○, who was the tax claimant for the highest real estate, seeks to successively exercise the right to claim the transfer of ownership and the right to claim the transfer of ownership to ○○ in this case on the ground of the sale contract in this case

B. Meanwhile, contrary to the above facts, the defendant alleged that the transfer registration of ownership in this case in the name of the defendant was not made pursuant to the title trust agreement between the largest ○○ and the defendant, but the defendant lent 5,1520,000 won to the largest ○○○, and only received the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate in this case as payment for the above loan from the highest ○○, but it does not believe that the statement in subparagraph 3, subparagraph 4-1 and 4-2, and the statement in the witness highest ○○, and the statement made by the person related to the title trust agreement in this case as to the testimony in this case, and there is no evidence contrary thereto.

Conclusion

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