A. The Defendant and O’s revocation of the gift agreement concluded on September 30, 2014 with respect to 10,000 common shares of 10,000 common shares of BB issuance and 5,000 common shares of CC issuance, within the limit of 3,729 common shares of 10,000 common shares of BB issuance and 10,000 common shares of CC issuance.

B. The defendant shall notify OO that it transferred 10,00 common shares and 3,729 common shares issued by CC Co., Ltd., and that it transferred the shares to BB andCC Co., Ltd.

C. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 5% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence of Nos. 1 through 3, 5 through 11, Eul evidence of No. 15, 16 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

A. Claims against the Plaintiff’s EO

1) On May 17, 2012, EO received cash of KRW 1 billion from her husband’s stuff (hereinafter “the first donation”), KRW 3 billion in cash on December 21, 2012 (hereinafter “the second donation”), and KRW 4 billion in total from her husband’s stuff.

2) On February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff’s OO tax secretary notified EOO of the decision to pay KRW 1,709,952,00 in total, and KRW 1,85,776,00 in total, and KRW 1,885,776,00 in the gift tax on the primary gift, including additional tax for unfaithful payment, and KRW 175,824,00 in the gift tax on the secondary gift (hereinafter “instant gift tax”).

3) On April 2, 2015, EO paid KRW 1,260,00,000 among the above gift taxes.

4) As of May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff has a taxation claim against OO on KRW 728,851,980 (this tax amount + KRW 627,341,770 + additional dues + KRW 174,637,160).

(b) Act of donation of stocks to the defendant of O;

On September 30, 2014, EO donated 10,00 common shares (the appraised value of KRW 320,000,000, hereinafter referred to as “B shares”) issued by the Defendant (the spouse of EO) to the Defendant (the spouse of EO) for the issuance of BB and 5,000 common shares (the appraised value of KRW 70,000,000, hereinafter referred to as “CC shares”) issued by CC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “instant shares”) (hereinafter referred to as “instant gift agreement”). At that time, the Defendant completed the transfer procedure for the instant shares.

C. The property status of OO at the time of the donation contract of this case

On September 30, 2014, September 30, 2014, at the time of the instant donation contract, the status of property of EO is as follows:

2. Determination as to the claim of this case

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

In principle, a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation should have arisen before an obligor performs a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. However, at the time of the juristic act, there has already been established a legal relationship that serves as the basis of establishment of the claim, and there is high probability that the claim would have been created in the near future. In the near future, where a claim is realized and its probability has arisen in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001; 2009Da81920, Sept. 29, 2011).

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s claim for gift tax of this case against EO was determined and notified to EO on February 2, 2015, which was after September 30, 2014 of the instant donation contract concluded, and the liability for tax payment was established. However, EO received cash of KRW 4 billion from EOO on or around May 2012 and around December of the same year and did not report and pay the gift tax, and thereafter received a notice of payment decision and notification of the gift tax of this case including the amount of penalty tax reported and paid in bad faith from EOO No.O. as at the time of the instant donation contract, it was highly probable that the tax claim of this case was established based on the above legal relations in the near future, as well as that it was highly probable that the claim of this case is established based on the above legal relations. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case can be subject to the obligee’s right of revocation of gift tax.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

1) Whether the EE stocks of this case are included in active property

A) The parties’ assertion

The defendant asserts that the contract of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act, since OO owned 2,205 shares issued in EE (hereinafter "E shares") at the time of the contract of this case, it should be included in active property, and if so, OO's active property considerably exceeds the negative property at the time of the contract of this case. The plaintiff asserts that the contract of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act, since OO's shares were owned in title trust by OO, it should be excluded from the active property of OO.

B) Whether the instant EE shares are held in title trust

At the time of the instant gift agreement ( September 30, 2014), the fact that EE shares were registered in the register of shareholders as shareholders of the instant EE shares (value of 789,043,815 won at the time of the instant gift agreement) is not a dispute between the parties. We examine whether EE shares were registered in the register of shareholders by husband’s HaO’s HaO’s title trust from MaO

In light of the following facts and circumstances revealed in light of each of the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 17 through 24, Eul evidence Nos. 17 through 19, Eul evidence No. 1 and 19, and evidence No. GaF's testimony and the overall purport of the pleadings, the actual owner of the EE shares of this case is YO, and EO was either nominal trust by it or YO was scheduled to return it to YO at least before the gift contract of this case, and the testimony of Eul's testimony and some of Eul evidence Nos. 17, 18, and 20 and EF are not believed, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

[Main Contents of the First Agreement]

1.EO shall withdraw the case of O court No. O. O. at the same time with payment of one billion won by O.O.

2. A place of residence may be designated as a previous domicile or a place different from one at the option of an O;

3. By the end of December 2012, 2012, POO shall purchase (the cost required for the registration shall be borne by PO) a building of an amount equivalent to three billion won and transfer it to O in its name;

4. BaO shall return to O by the end of October 2012 the title of ownership of the O-owned land.

5. On the completion of the performance of the above obligations, EO waives all civil or criminal claims relating to the above divorce case, but EO may, if delay in the performance of its obligations, bring another action in respect of the case so withdrawn.

① As of December 31, 2009, the register of shareholders of EE was registered as 19,150 shares in the representative director’s 50,000 shares, as of December 31, 2009; 2,205 shares in the EE shares in this case; 2,205 shares in South-Nam 15,350 shares; 2,350 shares in South-Nam YG 3,520 shares; 2,970 shares in the company, 2,305 shares in GJJJJ 2,305 shares in the company, 2,300 shares in the company, 2,00 shares in the company’s shareholders registry; 2,500 shares in the company’s shares; 2,00 shares in the company’s shareholders registry; 2,000 shares in the company’s shares were registered as shareholders by exercising shareholders’ rights in the shareholders’ meeting, etc. from the date of 2015.

② On December 6, 2011, EO filed a lawsuit for divorce, division of property, etc. against GaO with GaO’s aid. On May 17, 2012, EO entered into an agreement (hereinafter “the first agreement”) as follows, which includes the payment of KRW 1 billion from GaO and the withdrawal of the lawsuit at the same time between GaO and Gao’s aid. This agreement on May 17, 2012, EO received KRW 1 billion from GaO, and thereafter, on June 2012: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23788, May 17, 2012; Presidential Decree No. 23888, May 17, 2012>

6. The above divorce lawsuit was withdrawn.

③ Park DoD filed a lawsuit seeking the delivery of 15,350 share certificates registered in its own name against Gao and EE, Inc. on January 26, 2012. Accordingly, on March 8, 2012, GaoO notified Gao of the termination of title trust on the ground that Gao was a substantial shareholder, and completed the transfer of title on the same day after Gao notified Gao of the termination of title trust on the ground that Gao was the actual shareholder. However, Gao voluntarily voluntarily withdrawn the lawsuit claiming the delivery of share certificates on June 27, 2012, after GaO received a donation of KRW 1 billion in cash from GaO.

④ On July 4, 2012, Park DoD concluded a written confirmation that “E 15,350 shares listed in his/her name are shares held in title trust with the principal by Gao on March 7, 2012. As of March 8, 2012, Gao has no objection to the termination of title trust with respect to the said shares and the restoration of the shareholder’s rights in the future. He/she withdrawn the relevant lawsuit and then does not raise any objection or lawsuit against the said shares, and does not participate in the management of EE.” At that time, Gao also prepared and issued to Gao a written confirmation that Gao will receive title trust with respect to EE shares 2,00 shares under its name. The shares were also transferred in the name of Gao.

⑤ From December 21, 2012 to December 21, 2012, 2012, EO made an agreement to receive a gift of KRW 3 billion (Paragraph 3) from OO to refuse to exercise the right to divorce and division of property (hereinafter referred to as “second agreement”). On December 21, 2012, EO received a second donation amount of KRW 3 billion from OO on December 21, 2012. The second agreement provides that even if O has agreed to file a divorce lawsuit and claim for divorce, it shall not be allowed to file a lawsuit against O and any other lawsuit against O, and even if O has agreed to do so, it shall be deemed that O has reached an agreement to fully pay the shares of this case.

(6) On February 12, 2015, EE shares were asserted to be the actual owner of the instant EE shares and filed a lawsuit seeking delivery of share certificates against EE shares. On March 5, 2015, EO filed a lawsuit against EE shares with EO (hereinafter “E shares”). On March 5, 2015, EO notified EO that “The actual owner of the instant EE shares is himself/herself and it was under title trust with EO, but EO claims ownership by filing a claim for a claim for delivery of share certificates, and completed the title transfer of the instant E shares.”

7) EO’s criminal complaint was filed against GaO on the ground that the above transfer of GaO’s name was embezzlement. GaO did not appear in the investigative agency on the ground that Gao was physical body and thus did not proceed with an investigation. After that, GaO filed a complaint for the same reason, GaO filed a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that GaO did not have any evidence to acknowledge the charge of embezzlement of GaO, but the investigative agency did not have any authority to institute a public prosecution on the ground that there was no legal divorce relationship. The appeal and the application for adjudication by GaO were all dismissed.

8. On September 7, 2016, EO was sentenced to a dismissal judgment in a lawsuit demanding the issuance of the said share certificates, and such judgment became final and conclusive on September 24, 2016.

C) Whether the shares held in title trust are included in active property

Even if the instant EE shares were registered in the name of EO at the time of the instant donation contract, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion that the instant EE shares are included in the EO’s active property at the time of the instant donation contract, since EE shares were registered in the name of EO as above, EO was obligated to return the shares under title trust to EO.

2) Excess of liability due to the instant donation

“Juristic act detrimental to creditors who are the requirements for obligee’s right of revocation” refers to a juristic act that makes it impossible for creditors to fully satisfy their claims because the debtor’s assets are reduced due to a decrease in the debtor’s assets due to a lack of joint collateral or lack of sufficient common collateral. As such, such fraudulent act may be established not only where the debtor has already been in excess of his/her obligations before disposing of his/her assets, but also where the debtor is in excess of his/her obligations due to an act of disposal in question, such as summary and monetary donation, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da6808, Apr. 29, 2005; 201Da82360, Feb. 23, 2012). In light of the debtor’s property status at the time of the donation contract in this case, this case’s shares (BB shares 320,000 + 70,000CC’s shares + 30,37036,370-136.

(c) Bad faith of marine doctors and beneficiaries;

1) According to the above-mentioned, IO appears to have been aware that, although IO could have anticipated that a large amount of gift tax will be imposed even if IO received a donation of KRW 4 billion in the aggregate of the first and second receipts, IO would have been able to do so without filing a report and payment of the gift tax, IO would have been aware that the gift of the shares in this case to the Defendant, Hah-Ih, the lack of joint security for its creditors, including the Plaintiff, would have occurred. Accordingly, IO would be presumed to have expressed an intention to harm, and the Defendant

2) Since the beneficiary's bad faith in a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act is presumed to be the beneficiary's bad faith, the beneficiary is responsible to prove his/her good faith in order to be exempted from his/her liability. In such cases, the issue of good faith shall be determined reasonably in light of logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary, the circumstances or motive leading up to the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary, the circumstances leading up to the act of disposal, whether there are no special circumstances to suspect the act of disposal, and whether there are objective materials to support the act of disposal as a normal transaction, and circumstances after the act of disposal, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74621,

In the instant case, the Defendant, as a spouse of ParkD, was involved in the first and second agreements with ParkO in the process of the lawsuit of divorce, division of property, etc. over two times of EOO, and thus, he was fully aware of the progress of such case. Furthermore, under the first and second agreements, the Defendant was given a donation of KRW 4 billion in cash from ParkO and received a large amount of gift tax from LeeO without compensation from LeeO under the circumstance that it is sufficiently anticipated that EOO would have a duty to pay large amount of gift tax, and thus, the instant donation contract also seems to have been aware that the Defendant was a fraudulent act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had acted in good faith as to the fraudulent act of LeeO at the time of the instant donation contract.

(d) Scope of cancellation and reinstatement;

1) Relevant legal principles

Since the right to revoke a fraudulent act aims to preserve the joint collateral of a claim, the scope of revocation is limited to the extent necessary and sufficient to preserve the joint collateral. Therefore, in a case where a debtor is in excess of his/her obligation only by means of a fraudulent act, it is sufficient for the creditor to revoke only the part that falls short of the joint collateral of the claim as long as the fraudulent act is separate, up to his/her claim amount, and the entire act cannot be revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da36209, Aug. 19, 2010).

2) In the instant case:

ThisO has reached an excess of the obligation under the gift contract of this case. The gift contract of this case is composed of a large number of shares as well as 372,208,136 won (affirmative 3,365,133,637 won - small property 3,347,341,73 - 390,000 won of the value of the instant shares 372,208,136 won. Accordingly, the gift contract of this case should be revoked within the scope of 370,200, B00 shares [320,000, 32,000 won per share] 200, 300, 200, 300, 200, 300, 200, 300, 200, 400, 200, 300, 200, 400, 3000 shares shares shares shares (this case’s shares).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting part of the plaintiff's appeal and changing the judgment of the court of first instance as above.