2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

On August 18, 2010, the sales contract concluded on August 18, 2010 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 list and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "each real estate of this case") between the defendant and the non-party KimB (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case") shall be revoked, and the defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer as completed on August 25, 2010 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 list No. 4428 with respect to the Incheon District Court, Incheon District Court, Incheon Branch Office Kimpo Office

A. The director of the Seoincheon Tax Office, etc. under the Plaintiff’s jurisdiction determined and notified Nonparty KimB of a total of eight national taxes (hereinafter “each of the national taxes of this case”) as the items of capital gains tax, global income tax, etc. as shown in the attached Table 3 list, but KimB did not pay the above national taxes until now.

B. On August 18, 2010, KimB concluded the instant sales contract with the Defendant, who is a pro-friendly resident, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant on August 25, 2010 by the Incheon District Court, Incheon District Court, Incheon Branch of the Incheon Branch of District Court, the Kimpo-dong Office on August 25, 2010, which received on August 25, 2010.

C. At the stage of disposition on deficits of national taxes, the Plaintiff, using an internal computerized database of the National Tax Service, inquired about the details of the delinquent taxpayer's property and examined whether there are property to collect delinquent taxes. The date of disposition on deficits of each national tax of this case stated in the separate sheet No. 3, along with the above computerized database data. In particular, the written resolution on disposition on deficits of December 21, 2010 is accompanied by the "written investigation on the place of use of the proceeds for sale of property" in addition to the computerized database data.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's assertion

Since the Plaintiff sufficiently examined the current status of the KimB’s property as of the date of the instant disposition on deficits, it can be deemed that the existence of a fraudulent act or the grounds for revocation was known around December 21, 2010 in the process of disposition on deficits, at least as the written investigation, etc. on the use of the proceeds for sale of property was prepared. The instant lawsuit on revocation of a fraudulent act was filed on November 2, 2012, which was later than the lapse of one year from December 21, 2010, and is unlawful.

B. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff confirmed the fact that the instant sales contract was concluded in the process of each write-off, but the fact that the said sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act was known only after May 2, 2012, when the Plaintiff received KimB’s financial transaction information from the Central Tax Office upon request of the Central Tax Office, and thus, the instant lawsuit was filed in compliance with the exclusion period.

C. Determination

The "date when the creditor, who is the starting point of the exclusion period, becomes aware of the cause for revocation" in the exercise of the right to revoke means the date when the debtor becomes aware of the fact that he/she committed a fraudulent act while knowing that he/she would prejudice the creditor. This is not sufficient to simply recognize the fact that the debtor performed a disposal act of the property, and further, it is required to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that he/she had an intent to deceive the debtor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102, Mar. 26, 2009). According to the result of the inquiry about the Busan District Court's Busan District Court's Busan District Court's Busan Branch Branch of the Incheon District Court in order to collect each of the national taxes of this case, the plaintiff should be deemed to have been aware of the content of the sales contract of this case on August 24, 2010 as the plaintiff applied for registration of attachment based on the request for disposition on default, but was already transferred to the defendant.

Then, in the course of the disposition on deficits with respect to each of the national taxes of this case, the Plaintiff confirmed that KimB concluded the instant sales contract and caused a state of excess of the obligation that the property under its responsibility falls short of the national taxes established prior to the said sales contract. In particular, in the course of the disposition on deficits as of December 21, 2010, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that all of the above real estate sales proceeds were consumed by investigating the place of use of the proceeds for the sale of the property and, thus, at least on December 21, 2010, it was determined that the instant sales contract was a fraudulent act with the knowledge that Kim

Therefore, the lawsuit of revocation of the instant fraudulent act filed on November 2, 2012 after one year from December 21, 2010, is unlawful as the exclusion period has lapsed.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed.