2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

2. Applicable provisions;

Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act (Decision by Service by Public Notice)

Grounds of Claim

1. Formation of preserved claims;

(a) Circumstances of taxation;

The director of the Incheon District Tax Office under the Plaintiff may make a settlement of the balance on April 3, 2008 and make a non-party KimB a non-party KimB-O 000 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") and notify the payment without delay on June 30, 2010, but he did not pay it for the non-party KimB-B, and thus the amount of delinquent tax is 00 won.

(b) Formation of credit for a astronomical area;

In accordance with the following legal principles, the national tax of this case against KimB may be the preserved claim against the right to revoke the fraudulent act after the date of the fraudulent act in this case or after the establishment of the preserved claim. It is highly probable that the claims protected by the right to revoke may, as a matter of principle, be seen as a fraudulent act before the act was committed. However, there is a high probability that the legal relationship, which forms the basis of the establishment of the claim at the time of the fraudulent act, has already occurred in the near future and in the near future, the claim may also be the preserved claim in the near future, and the legal relationship, which forms the basis of the establishment of the claim, shall not be limited to the legal relationship under an agreement between the parties, but shall be widely included in the relationship or factual relations with which the establishment of the claim is probable (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da42957, Nov. 8, 202). Accordingly, national tax in this case should be presumed to have been created within two months prior to the last day of the month in which national tax payment was made.

2. Occurrence of fraudulent act;

A. Nonparty OO on April 7, 2008 to Defendant LA, one of the transfer proceeds of the real estate in this case.

It was 00 won, 000 won, 2000 won, and 000 won, and 22 September 22, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant gift contract”).

B. Details of the gift contract of this case

이사건 부동산 양도대금 중 산금 000원이 소외 김BB의 중구농협계좌 (00000)로 입금되었으며 이 중 000원은 은 소외 김BB의 중구농협 계좌 (000)에서 (주)PP토건 (0000)의 새마을금고계좌 (000)로 이체되었고， 이는 피고가 (주)PP토건의 대표였던(2006.8.24~2007.6.13) 지위를 이용하여 당시 (주)PP토건을 방문하여 법인과 무관하게 법인통장을 이용하여 개인적인 거래를 하였던 것으로 확인되며， 000원은 2008.5.16 소외 문BB의 중구농협계좌 (000)에서 중구농협지점 발행수표(0000 1매)로 출금하여 2008.5.16 문AA가 제시하여 재발행(00000천만원권 3매， #0000000: 백만원권 000매) 하였으며， 000원은 2008.8.20 소외 김BB의 중구농협계좌 (00000)에서 이QQ(000)外 3인에게 이체되어 피고가 2003.9.2 취득 한 '인천 OOO 0000 대 1，388㎡'의 취득자금으로 사용되었고， 000원은 2008.8.20 피고의 부동산 취득자급 이체와 동시에 피고의 국민은행계좌 (0000)로 이체되었으며，000원은 2009.3.30 김BB의 중구농협계좌 (000)에서 박RR(0000)의 새마을금고계좌(000)로 이체， 00000원은 2009.3.31 김OOO의 중구농협계좌(0000)에서 박RR (000000)의 새마을금고계좌)로 이체되어， 이는 피고가 피고의 지인인 박RR에게 채무를 상환한 것으로 확인되었으며， 000원은 2009.9.22. 김BB의 중구 농협계좌(00000)에서 문AA의 새마을금고계좌(000)로 이체되어 합계 월000원이 피고에게 현금증여 되었습니다.

[Report] The content and the method of proof that Nonparty KimB donated to the Defendant

(Omission of List)

3. Determination on excess of debt and act

The active property of KimB at the time of April 7, 2008, which is the date of the fraudulent act of this case, is KRW 000 as follows.

[Attachment 2] Proactive property as of the date of the fraudulent act by Nonparty KimB ( April 7, 2008)

(Indication of List omitted)

On the other hand, with small property, there are KRW 000 of the national tax of this case, which is the preservation claim of this case, so KimB had already been donated 000 won to the defendant in succession, which led to the lack of active property, and made it more difficult to satisfy the taxation claim holder due to the lack of active property increase during the period of donation. Accordingly, this can be viewed as a series of acts according to the ice intention, and it can be viewed as a series of acts according to the above-mentioned intention, and it can be viewed as a fraudulent act in all of the gift contracts of this case, which the defendant donated to the defendant at the time of donation. (See the list of data status, such as delinquent property No.

4. The date he becomes aware of the intention of mutual benefits and the fraudulent act;

After KimB received a large amount of money for transfer while transferring the instant real estate, it would be deemed that the KimB had intentionally donated money for transfer to the Defendant without paying a large amount of money for transfer, and that there was an intention to commit a fraudulent act that would have intentionally donated money for the purpose of evading a taxation claim (see A evidence 7 KimB’s confirmation), and such fact was first known to the Defendant through the GR’s explanatory statement in the process of confirming the process of confirming the process of receiving financial assets of ParkBR on October 6, 201 in the middle regional tax office through the GRR’s tracking tracking track for real estate transfer in KimB’s real estate in the middle regional tax office.

(See Note 1 to 2 Park R in subparagraph 6)

5. Bad faith of the defendant

The defendant should be deemed to have known of the fact that the delinquent KimB's failure to pay national taxes and the transfer price was delinquent when holding the delinquent KimB's financial account in the delinquent taxpayer's financial account, and that the financial assets of the transfer price were donated to him in order to avoid the disposition on default, such as seizure of national taxes, and to avoid the disposition on default (see, e.g., the head of 9

6. Compensation for value:

In light of the above facts, the gift contract of this case between KimB and the defendant was known to the defendant that was aware that it would prejudice the tax payer in order to be exempted from the disposition of default on national taxes due to the delinquency in payment of national taxes. Thus, the defendant is obligated to seek revocation of the objection and return 000 won to the plaintiff as the restoration was made in accordance with Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 406 of the Civil Act, and the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff as the restoration was made. However, as the defendant used and consumed the money in question, it is impossible for the plaintiff to claim the method of cancellation as its value and the amount of monetary compensation is 00 won for the defendant as stated in the claim.