2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The agreement on each gift made on January 3, 2006 and April 24, 2006 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet between Defendant ○○○ and the next ○○○○ on April 24, 2006 shall be revoked. The agreement on mortgage concluded on January 9, 2006 with respect to 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between Defendant Kim○○ and the next ○○○○○ shall be revoked. As to the Plaintiff, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet, Defendant Kim○○ shall be revoked. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the registration of each transfer of ownership completed on January 4, 2006 and completed on April 24, 2006 by the registry office of the Seoul Central District Court, and the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage completed on January 9, 2006 by the Seoul Central District Court of Justice, and Defendant Kim○○○ shall be implemented.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the following facts, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 1-2, 2-2, 3-3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2-4-1, 5-2, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 9-1 through 6, Gap evidence 10-1 through 4, Gap evidence 12, Gap evidence 13-1, 13-2, 14-1, 2, and 15-2, and Gap evidence 1-1, 3-1, 15-2, and the testimony of the first instance court ○○○, defendant 1-2, and defendant 1-2, and the whole purport of the pleading is acknowledged.

A. The head of the tax office’s head of the Plaintiff-affiliated ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ operated by the next ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “the second ○○○○○○○○○○”) conducted each tax investigation between December 1, 2005 and December 30, 205 (hereinafter “the first ○○○○○○○○○○○○○”) and March 9, 2006 and March 19, 2006 (hereinafter “the second ○○○○○○○○○○○”).

B. As of January 19, 2006, 2006, the head of ○○ Tax Office directly issued the notice of the first disposition to ○○○○○ upon the determination of KRW 51,81,360 on January 19, 200 as of January 19, 2006 of the exclusion period of value-added tax for the second quarter of 200 among the omitted sales confirmed after the first tax investigation (hereinafter referred to as the "the first disposition's notice"), and the first disposition's notice of tax payment.

C. After the head of ○○ Tax Office’s determination of the remaining omitted portion of sales through the second tax investigation, he determined each of the amount of value-added tax of 442,140,793 won from the first quarter of 2001 to the first quarter of 2004 and the global income tax of 289,84,183 won from the first quarter of 2000 to the second quarter of 2004 (hereinafter “the second disposition’s notice”). Of this, for global income tax of 82,379,100 won for which the expiration of the exclusion period of imposition of taxes is imminent, the payment period was set on May 31, 206; for the remaining tax amount, the payment period was set on June 30, 2006 and notified it to ○○○.

D. On January 31, 2006, 2006, 13,811,360 won, and December 22, 2006, 2006, 16,720 won ( principal tax + KRW 10,961,720 + additional dues KRW 5,700,000) with regard to the first disposition among the taxes notified to ○○○○○, and the head of the tax office did not pay the remainder of taxes. The head of the tax office attached ○○○○○○○○○○-dong, Seoul ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the ○○○○○”) to request the Korea Asset Management Corporation to sell the taxes at a public auction.

E. On January 3, 2006, the next ○○ entered into a contract to donate the remainder of 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate') on April 24, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "each gift contract') with Defendant Kim○, his wife, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the remainder of 1/2 shares of the real estate of this case under the receipt No. 563 on January 4, 2006 by the Seoul Central District Court's registry office of the Seoul Central District Court as to the registration of ownership transfer under the receipt of No. 563 on April 24, 2006, and the registration of ownership transfer as to the remainder of 1/2 shares of the real estate of this case under the receipt of No. 22813 of the same registry office on April 24, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "each of the ownership's

F. In addition, Defendant Kim○, the birth of Defendant Kim○, on January 9, 2006, concluded a mortgage agreement concerning the shares of 1/2 shares in each of the instant real estate with Defendant Kim○ and Defendant Kim○○ on each of the instant real estate (the group of shares of 1/2 shares in the instant real estate refers to the group of shares of 1/2; hereinafter the same shall apply). As to the instant real estate, the debtor with regard to the instant real estate at tea○○, Defendant Kim○, and the mortgagee at KRW 200,000,000, the amount of maximum debt shall be KRW 200,000,000, the registration office of the Seoul Central District Court was completed (hereinafter the group of shares of 148, Jan. 9, 2006).

G. At the time of each of the instant gift contracts and the instant mortgage contract, ○○○ was in a state where ○○ was unable to obtain a notice of tax investigation completion from the head of ○○ Tax Office, and ○○ did not have any particular property other than the instant real estate and electronic shopping mall. Around January 206, the market price of the instant real estate was equivalent to KRW 419,974,375, and the market price of the instant real estate was equivalent to KRW 41,400,000.

2. Determination

A. Formation of preserved claims

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 form the basis for the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future by such legal relations. In fact, where a claim has been realized in the near future and its probability has been realized, such claim may also become a preserved claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001).

According to the above facts, since each gift contract of this case and a new investigation on the omission of sales at 00○○○ at the time of the contract of this case was conducted, there was a high probability that there was a legal relationship which is the basis of establishing the claim, and there was a secondary disposition based on the near future tax investigation. In fact, there was a secondary disposition in the near future, so the Plaintiff’s unpaid amount of the first disposition and the tax claim based on the second disposition shall be the preserved claim in the lawsuit of revocation of fraudulent act.

B. Whether the fraudulent act was established

(1) As recognized earlier, in light of the following facts: (a) ○○ operated ○○ for more than 15 years; (b) 51,811,360 won of value-added tax imposed at the time of the first disposition; and (c) ○○ at the time of the conclusion of the instant gift contract and the instant mortgage contract, etc., it is reasonable to deem that ○○○ was aware that the instant gift contract and the instant mortgage contract were concluded with the knowledge that there was a subsequent tax investigation; and (d) ○○ was presumed to have been intentional by ○○○; and (e) ○○’s intent is presumed to have been presumed to have been committed with the Defendants’ bad faith.

(2) Judgment on the defendants' assertion

(A) Determination on the assertion of good faith by the tea ○○

The Defendants, at the time of operating ○○○○○○, did not know the detailed sales status of the store, because the details of the store management and inventory management, etc. were entrusted to the ○○○○○○○○○, which was entirely an employee, and did not know that the tax investigation was conducted twice. After the first disposition, the Defendants thought that no more tax would be imposed on the employees of the tax office on the ground that there was no other notification port. Since concluding each gift contract of this case and the mortgage contract on the real estate of this case, the Defendants asserted that the next ○○○○ did not have any intention to know. However, the testimony of the witness of the first instance court, corresponding thereto, is insufficient to acknowledge this by itself, without being reliance on the statement of No. 5 and No. 10, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above facts. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

(B) Determination as to the assertion as to whether ○○○ is insolvent

The Defendants asserted that the first disposition of 51,811,360 at the time when the gift contract of this case was concluded on January 3, 2006 with respect to the 1/2 shares among the real estate of this case, while, even after the above gift contract of this case, 1/2 shares among the real estate of this case and the 1/2 shares among the real estate of this case and the 1/2 shares at the market price of 100,000,000,000 are in existence, and the 00,000,000 shares and the 1/2 shares at the market price of this case did not exceed the active property, the contract of this case of this case as of January 3, 2006 on the 1/2 shares among the real estate of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act by failing to meet the debtor's insolvency requirements.

Then, there was a high probability that 00 ○○○○○○○○ at the time of each gift contract of this case had a legal relationship that is the basis of establishing a claim, and there was a second disposition in the near future. As such, the Plaintiff’s unpaid amount of the first disposition and tax claim arising from the second disposition were preserved claims for the fraudulent act as seen above. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion that 00 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was insolvent at the time of the gift contract of this case on January 3, 2006, including the tax claim amount arising from the first disposition and the tax claim amount arising from the second disposition of this case was merely 01,51,896 won at the time of the above donation contract of this case (=42,140,790,79384,461,4761,4767,4716,4761,467,5716,47,7616,47,716,67,74,7,4167,367.

C. Whether the Defendants acted in good faith

(1) The defendants' assertion

Defendant ○ Kim○-○, a trial father of Defendant Kim○-○, ○○’s real estate in this case, was flicked by Defendant Kim○-○, a trial father of Defendant Kim○-○ for about ten years, and Defendant Kim○-○ was donated to Defendant Kim○-○ by way of an answer and a preparation for the fact that the next ○○○ brought about money problems continuously after marriage. Defendant Kim○-○ was both Defendant Kim○-○ and management of the building rent out of the instant real estate and the tax payment related to the instant real estate. However, Defendant Kim○-○, upon the ○○○○’s request after the death of the next ○○○○○○, was found to have been in the next ○○○○-○○○○○○○, and Defendant Kim○-○ and the next ○○ was in a separate state, and in fact, Defendant Kim○-○ was also aware of the commencement of the tax investigation on the operation of the next ○○○○○○ at the time of the instant donation contract.

In addition, Defendant Kim ○-○ separately lent KRW 150,00,000 on November 9, 2003 to Defendant Kim ○-○, respectively, and KRW 50,000,00 on October 17, 2004, and Defendant Kim ○-○ demanded repayment from Defendant Kim ○-○ around December 2005, Defendant Kim ○-○ entered into a collateral security contract on the instant real estate with Defendant Kim ○-○, and Defendant Kim ○-○ was in a de facto separate state from Defendant Kim ○-○, and Defendant Kim ○-○ was also aware of the commencement of tax investigation on the operation of the tea, and Defendant Kim ○-○ was asserting that Defendant Kim ○ was bona fide.

(2)The plaintiff's assertion

If the next ○○○○○, a trial father of Defendant Kim○, donated the instant real estate to a private person, resulting in continuous monetary problems as alleged by Defendant Kim○○, the Plaintiff asserts that, if the next ○○○○○○, a trial father of Defendant Kim○○, donated the instant real estate to the next ○○○○, which caused the instant monetary problems after the death of the next ○○○○, transfer the registration of the instant real estate to the next ○○○○○○, and if doing so, he/she should pay the acquisition tax twice, including the time he/she moves the instant real estate to the next ○○○○, and the time he/she moves the registration of the instant real estate to the Defendant Kim○○○○, upon the request of the next ○○○○○○○, would be contrary to the empirical rule, and thus, it constitutes the scope of the right of attorney of the next ○○○○, and thus, Defendant

In addition, if the relationship between the next ○○○ and the next ○○○○○, based on the Defendant Kim○’s assertion, was brought to a lawsuit seeking a divorce, and the relationship between the Defendant Kim○○○ and the next ○○○○○ was practically in effect, it would be against the common sense that the Defendant Kim○○○ lent a large amount of money equivalent to KRW 200,00,000 to the next ○○○○○, which has caused the monetary problem frequently, and in general, the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security is set at 130% of the secured debt. In light of the fact that the establishment registration of the instant mortgage is set at KRW 200,000, the maximum debt amount is set at KRW 200,000,

(3) Determination

In light of the above facts, ○○○○○ made a private donation of the instant real estate to Defendant Kim○○, and Defendant Kim○○ transferred the registration of the instant real estate to Defendant Kim○○○ in the name of ○○○○○, without knowing that there was a tax investigation with respect to ○○○○○○○○○’s private donation, and Defendant Kim○○ concluded each of the instant donation contracts according to the purport of ○○○○○○○’s private donation. Defendant Kim○○ concluded a mortgage contract on the instant real estate without knowing that there was a tax investigation with regard to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a witness of the first instance trial, who is consistent with the Defendants’ assertion, did not believe that some of the testimony of ○○○○○○○○○ was in accord with 1-2, 2-2, and 3-1, 3-4, and 4-1, 6-2, 7-1, 8-1, 2, and 3-2, as so alleged otherwise, the Defendants’ assertion or the Defendants’ assertion on this part of this point is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, each of the instant gift contracts and the instant mortgage contract constitutes a fraudulent act, and each of them is revoked, and thus, to the Plaintiff as the restoration to its original state, Defendant Kim Jong-○, the beneficiary, and the subsequent purchaser, as to shares 1/2 of the instant real estate, the beneficiary, and as to shares 1/2 of the instant real estate, Defendant Kim Jong-○, the subsequent purchaser, is obligated to implement each of the procedures for registration of cancellation of the instant

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is justifiable, and all appeals filed by the Defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.