사해행위취소
1. The agreement concluded on December 6, 2018 between the Defendant and B on the donation of 97.4 square meters of the parking lot C in Kim Jong-si shall be revoked.
2...
1. Claims against which the right to revoke the fraudulent act is preserved;
A. On December 1, 2016, B: (a) on December 1, 2016, B transferred to E a building located in the same location as the land of four parcels, including the area of D 7265 square meters in Jung-gu, Jung-do; (b) on the same day, he/she did not transfer three lots of land, including the area of F farm site of 2083 square meters, to G at KRW 300,000,000; and (c) on January 2, 2019, he/she notified the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax of KRW 241,693,040 as the due date on February 28, 2019, B did not pay the transfer income tax of KRW 241,693,040 by adding the said capital gains tax to KRW 241,693,040,040,076,170,706,010.
3) B is a parking lot C 97.4m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in Kim Jong-do.
(A) On December 6, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a gift agreement with the Defendant, an ASEAN (hereinafter “instant gift”).
On December 10, 2018, the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate was completed in the name of the Defendant under the name of the Defendant. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1, 4, 5, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]
B. In principle, a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation 1 needs to be protected. However, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis for the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future in the near future. In the near future, where a claim has been created because the probability has been realized, such claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation.
Examining the facts of recognition in accordance with the above legal principles, it seems highly probable that B had already transferred each of the above real estate before the gift of this case to the Defendant, and there is a legal relationship that serves as the basis of establishing a tax claim, and that the tax claim of this case will accrue in the near future.
And the plaintiff transfer income tax.