2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 210,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final to the day of complete payment.

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

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-3, Gap evidence 4-1 through 15, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 7-1, Gap evidence 8-1 through 6, Gap evidence 13-1, 2, Eul evidence 5-1, 5-8, witness Kim ○'s testimony, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. On August 21, 2001, the non-party Kim ○, who had operated the real estate intermediary office in the name of '○○○○○○○○○ Dong' from 1979, sold the land and the land and the above 2-dong building on ○○○○○○○○ Dong, 00-00, and the above 2-dong (hereinafter referred to as "the first real estate of this case") to Do○○○ and Kim○○○, a tax office having jurisdiction over the first real estate of this case, sold the acquisition value of the first real estate of this case to 337,631,016, the transfer value of KRW 520,584,80, and paid KRW 27,675,666 as capital gains tax.

B. From April 10 to 18, 206, the head of ○○○ Tax Office investigated whether a report on payment of capital gains tax pursuant to the sale of real estate No. 1 of this case was made by Kim○, and confirmed that the acquisition value was exaggerated, and that the transfer value was reduced, and around that time, it was impossible to confirm the actual acquisition value and the transfer value. Based on the presumption of the standard market price of the real estate No. 1 of this case at the time of sale as the transfer value and the acquisition value, the amount of capital gains tax to be additionally paid by Kim○ for the transfer of real estate No. 1 of this case was determined by adding the amount of capital gains tax to the amount of the final tax, the final tax, the amount of tax, KRW 131,406,253, additional tax due to the failure to report, KRW 74,167, KRW 369, KRW 27,675,666, KRW 184,675,7960,67567.7.1967

C. On January 4, 2005, Kim ○○ concluded a sales contract of KRW 1,008,500 with respect to the building on the ○○○○○○○○○○○, 00-00, and 2nd above ground (hereinafter “second real estate”) that he own with the Lee○○○○ and Lee○○○○○○, one million, and KRW 440,000,00 with respect to the right to collateral security against the ○○○○○ Agricultural Cooperative established on the 2nd real estate of this case, he agreed to acquire KRW 65,000 with respect to the duty to return the lease deposit against the ○○○○○○○○○○ and Lee○○○○○○, which had been paid KRW 50,500 with respect to the above 500,000,000 with respect to the 2nd real estate under the name of the above Kim○ and Lee○○○, and KRW 500,500,000.

D. On January 17, 2005, Kim ○ and the Defendant divorced on February 7, 2005 from the legal couple. Of the purchase price of KRW 500,000,000 received as the division of property following a divorce by agreement to the Defendant, Kim ○ shall have registered KRW 140,000,000 on January 17, 2005 and KRW 70,000,000 on February 28, 200 as each gift (hereinafter “each gift contract of this case”) in addition to each donation of KRW 50,00,000 and KRW 70,000 on February 28, 2005 (hereinafter “each gift contract of this case”), around 17, 2005, KRW 0-0,000,000 prior to 20,000,000,000 prior to 20,000,000,000 prior to 230,00.

E. Meanwhile, on the other hand, Kim○-○ did not report capital gains tax on the transfer of the instant 2 real estate at the competent tax office, and on June 4, 2005, the head of ○○○○ Tax Office having jurisdiction over the instant 2 real estate was notified that the amount of capital gains tax to be paid by Kim○-○ on the transfer of the said 2 real estate was determined as KRW 57,290,962, and additional tax on KRW 63,65,662 as a total of KRW 63,65,666,62, and KRW 636,560,560 as a result of the failure to report and pay the said amount.

2. Determination

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since Kim ○-○ donated KRW 210,00,000 to the defendant according to each gift contract of this case in excess of the debt, the creditors including the plaintiff are placed in a more unfavorable position than the previous ones as the joint collateral of Kim○-○'s creditors decreased and the debt exceeds his debt deepens, the contract of this case between Kim ○-○ and the defendant should be entirely revoked as a fraudulent act, and that the plaintiff is obligated to pay the above amount to the plaintiff as a reinstatement.

(2) The defendant's assertion

On February 7, 2005, the defendant acquired 210,000,000 won through each of the gift agreements of this case for the purpose of division of property while divorced on February 7, 2005, and the above division of property is reasonable in light of the defendant's contribution to the formation of property, so it is not fraudulent act, or did not know that the plaintiff's claim would be infringed upon by receiving the above donation.

B. Determination as to the existence of the preserved claim

In principle, a claim that can be protected by the creditor’s right of revocation should have arisen before an obligor performs a juristic act aimed at property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the creditor, but at the time of the act, there is a high probability that the legal relationship, which is the basis of establishment of the claim, has already been established at the time of the act, and that the claim would have been created in the near future. In the event a claim is actually realized in the near future and its probability has arisen, the claim may also become the creditor’s preserved claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29,

As income tax on the gains from transfer of public health and assets is a tax to be paid by preliminary return, as it is an abstract interpretation of Article 21(2)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2519, Oct. 13, 1989). Although the additional notice of capital gains tax on the transfer of the first real estate was made on or around April 2006, ○○ sells the first real estate and thus, the obligation to pay capital gains tax on August 31, 2001 was established on the last day of that month, i.e., the obligation to pay capital gains tax on the said transfer income tax was already established abstractly as of August 31, 201; furthermore, it is probable that ○○○○○○ was not subject to the final return of capital gains tax on the transfer of the first real estate and its additional legal relations on the transfer of the second real estate, it is also probable that the Plaintiff had already been subject to the final return of capital gains tax and its additional tax on the transfer income tax claim.

C. Determination as to the fraudulent act

(1) The financial status of Kim○-○

(a)affirmative property;

Around January 2005 to February 2, 2005, each gift contract of this case was entered into with the active property of Kim○○ at the time of Kim○, in addition to the real estate of this case 2 and 3, there were 00-0 square meters for 00-0 square meters for 7 square meters for 000-0 square meters for 7 square meters for 000-0 square meters for 000 square meters for 8.4 square meters for 00-00 square meters for 00 square meters

① The Second Real Estate: 1,085,000,000 won

② Third Real Estate: 37,159,500 won

③ ○○○○○○○○○○-dong 00-0 7 square meters, the same 00-0 7 square meters, and the same 00-0 7 square meters, and the same 00-00 8.4 square meters: KRW 10,871,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 12-1 through 7, 9, Eul evidence 5-1 through 6, 9, 10, 11, and Eul evidence 6-1 to 6

(B) Petty property

Around January 2005 to February 2, 2005, each of the instant donations contract was concluded with Kim○○○○○’s small property at the time of Kim○○○’s transfer of the instant second real property, and there was KRW 65,00,000 for the obligation to return the lease deposit with respect to the instant real property and KRW 440,00,000, and KRW 206,318,134 for the additional tax payment obligation due to the transfer of the instant first real property (= KRW 187,561,940 + KRW 18,756,194), and for the tax payment obligation due to the transfer of the instant second real property (= KRW 64,293,180 + KRW 63,656,620 + KRW 636,5600 + KRW 636,560,000). The Defendant had acknowledged the existence of light as 00,000,000.

(2) Determination on the establishment of fraudulent act

In full view of the above circumstances, Kim ○-○’s respective gift contracts of this case were merely KRW 67,419,186 (= KRW 1,133,030,50 - KRW 1,065,611,314). However, Kim ○-○ paid KRW 210,000 to the Defendant according to each of the gift contracts of this case, and Kim ○-○ is deemed to have deteriorated or deepened the excess of the obligation. As such, each of the gift contracts of this case is a fraudulent act in relation to the general creditors including the Plaintiff, and since Kim ○-○ operated the real estate intermediary office for a period exceeding 20 years, since it was known that the transfer income tax to be borne when selling the real estate of this case was known to the general creditors including the Plaintiff, it shall be presumed that the gift contract of this case was prejudicial to the general creditors including the Plaintiff, and thus, it shall be presumed that the Defendant, a beneficiary, a beneficiary of this case, was also a beneficiary of this case.

(3) Judgment on the defendant's argument that the defendant's adequate property should be denied

On February 7, 2005, the defendant acquired 210,000,000 won through the gift contract of this case as the property division while the agreement between Kim○ and Kim○ on February 7, 2005. The defendant asserts that the above property division is not fraudulent since it is appropriate in light of the defendant's contribution to property formation.

In light of the fact that the division of property following a divorce has the nature of support to the other party, which is the liquidation of the common property formed through mutual cooperation during marriage, the division of property as a result of the reduction of common security to the general creditor by transferring a certain property through a divorce, such as where the person who renders a division of property has already been in excess of his/her obligation at the time, or becomes insolvent due to the division of property, etc., barring any special circumstance to deem that the division of property is excessive beyond the considerable degree pursuant to the purport of Article 839(2) of the Civil Act, the division of property shall not be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the burden of proving that there are special circumstances to deem it as excessive division of property beyond the considerable degree shall be deemed to be a creditor who asserts it. In such cases, the division of property may be divided by including consolation money due to one party’s negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da58963, Jan. 28, 2005).

Therefore, we examine whether the division of property in this case exceeds a considerable amount of money, and the facts that the defendant contributed to increasing property by operating a variety of leaps with the trade name from around August 1983 to February 1994 are not disputed between the parties. However, Gap evidence 7-2, 3, 9, 14-1, 2, 3, and 4-1, 4-2, can be acknowledged after considering the overall purport of pleadings. In other words, since the defendant operated multiples as mentioned above and paid 24,00,000 won per year to the defendant, it is reasonable to 30,000 won per annum after 196 to 30,000 won, and it is reasonable to view that the principal cause of divorce by Kim ○○ and the defendant exceeded 30,000 won per year, and it is reasonable to 30,000 won per annum 6,000 won per year, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant's property division exceeds a reasonable amount of property division 1, 7, 3,07, etc.

(4) Determination on the Defendant’s bona fide assertion

Although the Defendant was unaware of the existence of an obligation of capital gains tax of ○○○ at the time of each donation contract, even if he knew of the existence of an obligation of ○○○○○○ at the time of the pertinent donation contract, the Defendant merely received a gift as a proper division of property, and did not know that each donation contract of this case was detrimental to other general creditors such as the Plaintiff, etc., there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statement in the evidence No. 6 and No. 1, the Defendant was within 40 years from Kim○ and 40 years, and the Defendant did not know that the active property of ○○○○ was 1,133,030,50 won at the time of the instant donation contract, but the Defendant did not have known of the fact that ○○○○○○ was 440,000,000 won, and that ○○○○○○ was able to receive capital gains tax of 100,000,000 additional real property.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the entire contract of this case between Kim ○ and the defendant is revoked, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 210,000,000 and damages for delay at a rate of 5% per annum as requested by the plaintiff from the day after the day after the decision of this case became final to the day after full payment is made. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted in its entirety due to all reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.