Note. Do.

1. (a) On November 24, 2010, concluded on November 24, 2010

The contract of donation shall be revoked within the scope ofoo.

B. The defendant is from the day following the day after the day when this decision became final and conclusive to the plaintiff

The amount shall be paid at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of full payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

(a) The relationship between the parties;

The defendant is the wife of Isa, and Isa is the representative director of bb transferred theory, located in odongoo, Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, (hereinafter referred to as 'b transferred theory'), and bb transferred theory opened on June 27, 2002 and closed o. o. o. 2010.

B. The Plaintiff’s taxation on Eaa

1) The director of the Seoulo District Tax Office found the fact that Booogle omitted sales in the year 2008 (from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008) and the year 2009 (from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009) and imposed booogle on Boogle on September 7, 2010, aggregate of the corporate tax for the said two business years.

2) In addition, the head of the Seoul Cc Tax Office determined the due date for payment as of September 30, 2012 on the ground that the amount omitted from the sales of the bb prior theory was disposed of as a bonus under the Corporate Tax Act, the representative director of the a, and that the amount was recognized as a bonus in the 2008 and 2009, and notified the ooo on the global income tax for the portion reverted to the 2008 and 2009.

3) Ghana did not pay this up to date, and the global income tax for fiscal year 2008, including additional dues, calculated as of March 29, 2013, shall be oowon and oooowon for fiscal year 2009.

(c)a donations to the defendant under this subsection;

1) On November 24, 2010, Isa donated the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) to the Defendant, one’s wife, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on November 25, 2010 following the donation.

2) The lease deposit of the lessee who leased each of the households of the instant building at the time of the said donation and received the fixed date is a total of ooo only as shown in the attached Table. The secured debt of the right to collateral security on the instant building is a total of ooo only (=the debt of b.00,000 won + the debt of ooo in b.a.).

3) At the time of donation of the building of this case, the building of this case and the market price of 153 million won had o golf membership equivalent to 10,000,000,000 won, and the small property was a oooman with the obligation to return the lease deposit for the building of this case to ooman, oooman, oo bank with the obligation to pay global income tax, ooooman with the obligation to pay the lease deposit for the building of this case. However, the donation of the building of this case led to the status of oo in excess of the active property.

D. With respect to the building in which the cancellation of the right to collateral security and the creation of the new right to collateral security regarding the building in this case were established, on April 16, 2003, the right to collateral security was established over the maximum debt amount of 100 million won, which was against Eaa, the debtor and Eo bank, the mortgagee, and on February 16, 2009, the right to collateral security was established over the debtor as b prior theory and o bank, the mortgagee as o bank. However, on September 27, 2011 after the Defendant donated the building in this case, on September 27, 2011, the right to collateral security was established over the debtor as the defendant and the mortgagee as d credit cooperative, and at the same time, the registration of each of the above right to collateral security was cancelled.

Facts having no dispute over recognition, Gap's entries in Gap's Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

1) Claims that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation should, in principle, arise before an obligor performs a juristic act for the purpose of property right. However, there is a high probability that the claims have already been established at the time of the juristic act, and that the claims have been created in the near future in the future, the claims may also become preserved bonds of the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007). According to the respective statements of evidence Nos. 2, 6, 8, and 9, Seoul CC Tax Office had stated the following facts: (a) it was highly probable that the bonus income amount belongs to the obligor’s tax base for the purpose of this case’s 10 years prior to the establishment of the obligee’s right of revocation; (b) it was stated that the income amount of 2oo tax and the income amount of 2oo tax for the purpose of this case’s prior notice was given to 20 years and 20 years prior notice of taxation.

1) According to the above facts, since Ga donated the building of this case to the defendant who is one's wife and caused an excess of its obligation, this constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, barring any special circumstance, it would be prejudicial to the interests of other creditors, and thus, barring any special circumstance, it would constitute a fraudulent act in relation to the other creditors. In other words, Ea and the defendant are married parties, the location of bb transfer theory is 101 of the building of this case, Ea and the defendant's residence are the o of the building of this case, Ea and the defendant's residence are borne by Ea and Emb transfer gift tax of this case, around November 201, there is no obvious reason for Ea to donate the building of this case to the defendant. Unless there is any special reason for Ea and Ea, the property golf membership of Ea, the only property of the building of this case, other than the building of this case, was disposed of as of December 9, 2010, the defendant was aware that it would have been disposed of the tax exemption of this case's tax exemption of this case.

2) On this basis, the Defendant asserts that the value of the instant building is o only 10,00 won, which is the aggregate of the value of the instant building, and that it does not fall short of o 10,000 won, which is the aggregate of the secured debt amount of the right to collateral security regarding the instant building and the obligation to return the lease deposit (i.e., o 10,000 won). Thus, according to the evidence evidence No. 5 and No. 6, the act of donation of the instant building does not constitute fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors. However, according to the evidence No. 9, the Defendant submitted a report on tax base of gift tax and the return of the price of the instant building, the value of the instant building was reported to o 100,000,000 won, which is the aggregate value of 101,000O 10,0000,0000 won, which is not included in the market value of each of the instant building, based on the evidence proof that the Defendant’s market value of each of the instant building was paid for property division.

4) Lastly, the defendant defense that there was no intention to harm the plaintiff as the gift of the building of this case, but the above evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's defense is without merit. The method of reinstatement and the scope of revocation is without merit.

1) Furthermore, in light of the method and scope of restitution following the revocation of a fraudulent act, where a legal act on certain real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, in principle, the fraudulent act should be revoked and the order to restore the real estate itself, such as cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership. However, in the event a fraudulent act is established with respect to real estate on which a mortgage is established, such fraudulent act shall be established only within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount of the mortgage from the value of the real estate. Therefore, in a case where a mortgage establishment registration is cancelled due to repayment, etc. after a fraudulent act, ordering the cancellation of a fraudulent act and the restoration of the real estate itself to the extent that it does not constitute a joint security of the general creditors, thereby going against fairness and fairness, order the cancellation of a fraudulent act and the compensation for damages can only be sought within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount of the mortgage from the value of the real estate, and such calculation shall be based on the value of the leased real estate at the time of closing argument at fact-finding proceedings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20131Da1614, supra.

2) However, as seen earlier, the registration of establishment of a new mortgage on the instant building was completed with respect to our bank as a mortgagee, and since the registration of establishment of a new mortgage on the Defendant’s name was revoked after the registration of establishment of a new mortgage on the instant building was completed, the Defendant should restore the building to its original state by the method of compensatory damages

3) According to the evidence evidence No. 11, the appraisal report on the building of this case was prepared as of September 21, 201 near the closing date of the pleadings of this case. The market price of the building of this case as of September 21, 201 can be recognized as the fact that the price of each household of this case is the same as that of the building of this case. This is confirmed as of the closing date of pleadings of this case. Here, if the building of this case was established as to the building of this case, which is the sum of the actual secured debt amount of the right to collateral security and the amount of the lease deposit of the lessee of this case, which is the sum of the repayment debt amount of the right to collateral security upon the cancellation of the right to collateral security, the joint collateral value of the building of this case at the time of the fraudulent act of this case belongs to oo (i.e., oo - 490,000o - 200o 30,000o 20).

4) Therefore, the donation contract concluded between Eo and the Defendant regarding the building of this case shall be revoked within the scope of Eoo, and as a result, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the annual interest rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from the day following the day on which this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

3. Conclusion

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