2. On June 17, 2016, the Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed by ○○ District Court ○○○○ registry on the real estate mentioned in the above paragraph (1) to Kim○○.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. Nonparty ○○○○ from June 16, 2008 to October 11, 2016

○○ (○○동)에서 '◆◆무역'이라는 상호로 불교용품 도소매업을 운영하였다.

나. 김○○은 ◆◆무역 운영과 관련하여 2018. 1. 20. 현재 아래와 같이 합계

The amount of national taxes equivalent to 285,204,030 won is delinquent.

C. On June 17, 2016, ○○○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, an exclusive real estate owned by himself, entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant, who is his father, with respect to 90/26,075 square meters of forest 26,075 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On the same day, Kim○-do entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant as indicated in the text, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

D. At the time of entering into the instant donation contract, Kim ○ did not have any active property other than the instant real estate.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 4, the whole pleadings

[Purpose]

2. Determination

A. As to the existence of the preserved claim

According to the above facts, the plaintiff had a national tax claim against Kim ○ at the time of entering into the gift contract of this case, and the above claim is a preserved claim for revocation of fraudulent act.

B. As to the intent to commit fraudulent act and to injure himself

However, barring any special circumstance, the debtor's act of selling real estate, which is the only property of the debtor, and changing it with money easily consumed or transferring it to another person without compensation, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor. Thus, the debtor's intent of prejudice is presumed to exist, and the burden of proving that the purchaser or the transferor did not maliciously perform his/her obligation is the beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001). In addition, in a case where the debtor's property is insufficient to fully repay his/her obligation, if the debtor provided real estate to a certain creditor as payment in kind, which is the only property of the debtor, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership with payment in kind, the creditor obtains satisfaction priority over other creditors, while the joint security is reduced to the extent that the other creditor is placed in a more unfavorable position than the previous creditor's interest. Accordingly, the debtor's act of offering the real estate to any one of his/her creditors, which is the only property of the debtor, barring special circumstances, constitutes a fraudulent act against other creditors (see, etc.

As to the instant case, it is reasonable to view that the conclusion of the instant donation contract with the Defendant, his father, as his sole property in excess of the debt, with respect to the instant real estate, should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff. Such conclusion does not change even if the Defendant, as alleged in the foregoing, has a claim against Kim○, and received the instant real estate by accord and satisfaction.

C. As to the claim for restitution

The gift contract of this case must be revoked by fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is the creditor, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case as to the real estate in this case, as restitution following the revocation of fraudulent act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.