나. 피고 이AA은 소외 이BB에게 위 가.항 기재 부동산에 관하여 창원지방법원 ◎◎등기소 접수 20◎◎. ◎◎. ◎◎. 제◎◎◎◎호로 마쳐진 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를 이행하라.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant LeeCC is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant ACC is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant AA is assessed against the said Defendant.

가. 소외 이BB은 2010. 2. 2. 합병 전 ●●시 ●●면 ●●리 ●●-●● 전 3683㎡를 소외 ◇◇◇◇◇◇◇ 주식회사에 매도하고 창원지방법원 ◎◎등기소 20◎◎. ◎◎. ◎◎. 접수 제◎◎◎◎호로 위 회사 명의의 소유권이전등기를 마쳐주면서 2010. 7. 23. 자경농지를 이유로 양도소득세 감면신고를 하였다.

B. The head of the Plaintiff-affiliated Kimhae Tax Office pointed out that it is reasonable to deny the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to the self-determination of eight years as the land is confirmed to be a site from July 27, 201, when the Plaintiff did not impose capital gains tax on the transfer of the said land from the local office’s comprehensive audit to the local office, and that it is reasonable to deny the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on August 28, 201 (payment period of December 31, 201), and issued a notice of the determination of imposition of capital gains tax (payment period of December 31, 201), including the additional and increased additional charges, at the time of the institution of the instant lawsuit, the delinquent amount of BB, including the additional and increased additional charges, is KRW 10

C. With respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 (hereinafter referred to as “real estate 1”), this BB completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of trading on February 7, 2011 to the Defendant CC, who is his/her influence, with the Changwon District Court 20 knives registry office 20 knives registry office b0 knives registry office 19201, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership as to the shares of 8281/162 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 on August 29, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “second real estate”), this B completed the registration of transfer of ownership with the above registry office No. 89872 on August 30, 2011.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant ACC

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, while this B knows that the transfer income tax is imposed on oneself, this would result in the reduction of liability property by concluding a sales contract with the Defendant CC and completing the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the first real estate, this would be a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors including the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Defendant CC asserts that, even after this B transferred the said land to Defendant CC, this active property exceeded the negative property, and Defendant CC was in good faith not knowing at all of this BB’s obligation of transfer income tax.

나. 그러므로 보건대, 이BB이 제1부동산에 관하여 피고 이CC에게 소유권이전등기를 마쳐 준 2010. 2. 7. 무렵 이BB의 소극재산으로는 양도소득세 82,706,869원이유일하였던 반면 원고가 자인하는, ◎◎시 ◎◎면 ◎◎리 ◎◎◎◎-◎◎ 토지 및 건물 평가액 31,980,000원 이상, 제2부동산 평가액 24,428,950원 이외에도 을 제3호증, 을 제4호증의 1의 기재에 의하여 인정되는 같은 리 967 전 962㎡, 신협에 대한 정기예금 채권 3,000만 원, 자동차 등 합계 86,408,950원 이상의 적극재산이 있었던 것이 인정되므로, 이BB이 피고 이CC에게 제1부동산을 이전함으로써 원고를 비롯한 일반채권자의 공동담보 부족이 초래되었다는 점을 인정하기 어렵고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없어 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A with respect to this case

A. According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 3-2, 2-1 and 2-2 of the evidence Nos. 3-2, 2000,000 won after the Plaintiff received a notice of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 82,706,869 from the Plaintiff on August 29, 2011, the Plaintiff terminated the deposit contract with KRW 30 million prior to August 29, 201, and released the total amount. On the following day, the second real estate was transferred to Defendant A, and the next day was transferred to Nonparty B on August 31, 2011, the fact that the above knife knife knife knife knife knife

B. In a case where a debtor has engaged in a series of property acts as above, in principle, it shall be determined based on whether each act was caused by the act in view of the obligee’s right of revocation. However, when there exist special circumstances to deem the series of such acts as a single act, it shall be determined as a whole. In such a case, whether there exists such special circumstances ought to be determined based on the identity of the other party to the act, the time closeness of each property act, the relationship between the debtor and the other party, the motive or opportunity of the act, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74900, Sept. 14, 2006).

C. However, in light of the fact that this BB’s series of acts of disposal and remaining assets have become difficult to satisfy the Plaintiff’s claim amount between the two days before the Plaintiff received the notice of taxation from the Plaintiff, the above series of acts of property of this BB are deemed to be a single act in determining its existence, and thus, it can be deemed that the act of transferring the 2 real estate to the Defendant A constitutes a fraudulent act, and it is presumed that Defendant AA’s bad faith, the beneficiary, is presumed to be a fraudulent act.

D. As to this, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that Defendant A had not been a general liability property of this BB because thisA had the property under title trust with Defendant ACC.

E. If so, the sales contract concluded between B and Defendant AA on August 29, 201 with respect to 2 real estate should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and Defendant AA is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration as a restitution following the revocation of fraudulent act by this B.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Lee In-CC is dismissed as it is without merit, and the claim against the defendant LeeB is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.