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

Cheong-gu Office

A.O.O.O. for the real estate stated in the separate sheet between the defendant and AA(hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") is revoked, and the defendant will pay to the plaintiff 20O.O.O. for the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from the day after the date this judgment becomes final to the day of complete payment.

A. Tax claims against the Plaintiff AA

(1) Around 20O.O.O.O., the director of the BB tax office under the Plaintiff found the fact that a park, etc. was included in the taxable year of 2012 through a general investigation of value-added tax on CCC (hereinafter referred to as “Non-Party Company”), and notified the Non-Party Company of the change in the amount of income to OO.O.O., the non-Party Company.

(2) The head of BB Tax Office determined and notified AA as the due date for payment 20O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O., and additionally notified AA as the due date for payment 20O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O., but AA did not pay AA(hereinafter referred to as “instant global income tax”).

(b) The details of the real estate disposition by AA;

AAA entered into a gift agreement with the Defendant, who is the wife of 20O.O.O.O.O., on one-half shares of the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as the “instant gift agreement”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant with respect to the said shares.

(c) The financial status of AA;

AA became insolvent due to the gift contract of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

The plaintiff should be deemed to have known that AA was insolvent due to the gift contract of this case at around 20O.O.O.O. or around 20O.O.O. or around around 2000.O. or around 2000.O., the general investigation period of value-added tax against the non-party company, three months after the transfer registration of ownership based on the gift of 1/2 of the real estate of this case was made in the future of the defendant. Thus, the lawsuit of this case filed at around 20O.O.O. is unlawful since one year, the exclusion period

B. Determination

(1) In the exercise of the right of revocation, the "date when the obligee becomes aware of the ground for revocation" means the date when the obligee became aware of the requirements for the right of revocation, that is, the date when the obligee became aware of the fact that the obligee had committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. The mere fact that the obligee became aware of the ground for revocation is insufficient to recognize the fact that the obligee performed a disposition of the property, and further, the obligor knew of the existence of a specific fraudulent act, and it cannot be presumed that the obligee was aware of the objective fact of the fraudulent act, on the ground that the obligee was aware of the objective fact of the fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da61280, Jul. 4, 2006).

(2) The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the instant gift contract constitutes a fraudulent act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(3) The defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

(1) In cases where the tax authority deemed that the amount included in the gross income that was released from the company was reverted to the representative and disposed of as bonus, if the tax authority deemed that the amount of income was disposed of as bonus, it shall be subject to the earned income tax if the representative was disposed of as income, and the amount of income is the receipt date of the labor provided during the pertinent business year in which the amount of income is subject to the disposition of imposition. Thus, the liability to pay global income tax on the basis of the inclusion of the person to whom the income accrued is recognized as the receipt date of the income and the liability to pay global income tax is established when the taxable period that belongs to the relevant income expires (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du187, Apr. 24, 2008; 2004Du

(2) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, global income tax on AA for the year 2012 on December 31, 2012, on which the liability to pay tax was established, is deemed to have already been established prior to the instant gift agreement. As such, the Plaintiff’s global income tax on AA may be the preserved claim for the obligee’s right of revocation, and even if the notice of correction and notification of global income tax on AA was made as a pro rata of 20O.O.O.O.O., such circumstance does not affect the establishment of the preserved claim.

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

(1) In order to revoke a fraudulent act, the intention of deception, which is a subjective requirement, means recognizing the fact that the debtor's act of disposal of the debtor's property reduces the assets, thereby making it impossible to fully satisfy the creditor's claims due to the decrease in the joint security of claims or the lack of joint security already in the state of shortage (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da29916, Nov. 22, 199). In principle, in determining the debtor's intention of deception, the circumstances at the time of the fraudulent act shall be based on the situation at the time of the fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da31940, Dec. 8, 200).

(2) In light of the facts and circumstances described in the above facts and evidence Nos. 3 through 12, which are acknowledged as a whole in light of the overall purport of the pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize that AA entered into the gift contract of this case with a private intent to know the circumstances that AA would have to bear the comprehensive income tax of this case at the time of the donation contract of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(1) The gift contract of this case was concluded 20O.O.O.O.O.O.O., and the registration of ownership transfer was also made 20O.O.O.O.O.O.O., and the general investigation of value-added tax on the non-party company, which served as the basis of the disposition imposing global income tax of this case against AA, began from 20O.O.O., and the time when BB head of the tax office notified AA of the change of income was 20O.O.O., more than 3 years after the execution date of the gift contract of this case.

(2) AA had been registered as the representative director of the non-party company for 5 months from 20O.O.O. to 20O.O.O.O., but the actual operator of the non-party company was DD, the birth of AA.

(3) Accordingly, the director of the BB tax office filed a complaint with the investigation agency on the charge of violation of the Act on the AA and EE, a representative director in the name of the non-party company, on the AA and EE.

(4) However, the prosecutor of the OO.O.O.O., on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the non-party company issued false tax invoices, the prosecutor issued a non-prosecution disposition against AA and DD, etc.

(5) Although the tax liability is naturally established when the legal requirements are met, it shall be determined only through the procedure of determining the tax base and the amount of tax. Before that, the tax liability established based on the fulfillment of the taxation requirements is an abstract existence. Therefore, it is difficult to view that AAA fully recognized the possibility that AAA would be liable to pay a large amount of comprehensive income tax at the time of the donation contract of this case on the sole basis that AAA was established based on the recognition of AA, the representative director of the non-party company, and the global income tax based on the disposal of income.

(6) Furthermore, in light of the fact that the notice of change in the amount of income to AA was made from around 200O.O.O. as a result of the general investigation of value-added tax conducted from around 200O.O., and that the investigation agency conducted a non-prosecution disposition in relation to the issuance of false tax invoices by the non-party company, it is difficult to deem that the non-party company, not the actual operator of the non-party company, could have anticipated such disposition to be made to it three years prior to the notification of change in amount

(3) The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit to further examine.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.