2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. Formation of the instant taxation claim

(1) On August 31, 2009, between September 30, 201 and September 30, 2010, the head of the OOO tax office, etc. under the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office, etc. notified the BB (hereinafter “BB”) that 8 cases, including corporate tax and value-added tax, were determined and notified as listed in the following table, and BB did not pay the tax amount of OOO directors as of November 30, 2010, which is the date of the instant sales contract as seen below.

No.

Items of Taxation

Deadline for payment

The notified tax amount (cost)

November 30, 2010

Standard delinquent amount (won)

1

Corporate Tax

August 31, 2009

OOO

OOO

2

Earned income tax

November 30, 2009

OOO

OOO

3

Earned income tax

December 31, 2009

OOO

OOO

4

Value-added Tax

June 30, 2010

OOO

OOO

5

Value-added Tax

June 30, 2010

OOO

OOO

6

Earned income tax

June 30, 2010

OOO

OOO

7

Value-added Tax

September 30, 2010

OOO

OOO

8

Value-added Tax

September 30, 2010

OOO

OOO

Total

OOO

OOO

(2) In addition, on December 6, 2010, the head of the E-Government Tax Office decided and notified the OO of value-added tax for the taxable period from July 1, 2010 to September 30, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “tax claim in this case”) to BB.

(b) Disposal of property;

BB entered into a sales contract on November 30, 2010 with the Defendant, and BB entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on December 1, 2010 under the receipt of OOO registry by the Jung-gu District Court No. 19383 on December 1, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 to Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The establishment of a fraudulent act;

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle, it is highly probable that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that serve as the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future in the near future, and that a claim has been created due to the realization of the possibility in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001).

According to the facts found in paragraph (1), among the taxation claims in this case, the taxation claims in Paragraph (1)(1) of Paragraph (1) of Paragraph (1) of the above Article are already imposed on BB prior to the conclusion of the sales contract in this case, and thus, they can become the obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's tax claim at the end of the taxable period (Article 21(1)7 of the Framework Act on National Taxes) and the taxpayer's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's obligee's claim in this case was determined and stated specifically in the above paragraph (2) of the above Article before the conclusion of the sales contract in this case.

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

Even if the real estate sold by the debtor is not the only real estate owned by the debtor, it is difficult for the creditor to sell and consume or conceal the real estate with ease to sell and change it to money, because it is impossible or extremely difficult for the creditor to proceed to execute the execution for the experiment of the claim, so if the debtor’s financial condition has been caused or deepened as a result of the sale, it would constitute a fraudulent act even if the real estate was sold at a reasonable price equivalent to the market price. Furthermore, if the debtor transfers the real estate to a third party, which was created by the collateral security in excess of his/her financial obligation, and the proceeds of the sale are agreed to substitute the payment by acquiring the secured obligation under the collateral security in excess of his/her financial obligation, and the debtor shall be deemed to transfer the real estate which was created by the joint security of the general creditor at an unreasonably low price without paying the purchase price, and such transfer act constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da50875, May

According to the following circumstances: ① the real estate of this case where BB was sold to the Defendant, and the first 3rd 1st 2st 5th 2, and second 9th 1st 1st 1st , and Eul 1st 1st , and the entire purpose of the pleadings, the remaining OB 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 200, each of these O26th 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 200, and each of these 2 through 6th 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 203rd 3rd 30, and 203rd 3rd 3rd 30, under which each of these items was purchased and sold by the Defendant.

C. Determination on the defendant's good faith defense

The defendant did not know the circumstances of BB and some shareholders, and did not know that the above contract was a fraudulent act at the time of entering into the contract of this case, but there was no evidence to acknowledge it, and therefore the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

A. Scope of the establishment of fraudulent act

In cases where a juristic act on a certain real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, in principle, it is necessary to cancel the fraudulent act and order the restoration of the real estate itself, such as cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership, and in cases where the restoration of the real estate itself is ordered by revocation of the fraudulent act and order the restoration of the part which was not the initial creditors' joint security if the fraudulent act was ordered by revocation of the fraudulent act, it is reasonable to cancel the fraudulent act within the extent of the balance remaining after deducting the value of the part which was not common security from the value of the real estate, and order compensation for damages to the extent of the value (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da28819, 2826, Feb. 25, 2010).

In light of the health care, Gap evidence No. 6 and the purport of the whole arguments, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant completed artificial construction work after delivery of each of the real estate of this case after the conclusion of the sales contract of this case and input construction expenses for the OOOOO to use each of the above real estate as the notified telecom, and it seems that the defendant increased the objective value of each of the above real estate of this case and its value remains existing. If the contract of this case is completely cancelled and the contract of this case is ordered to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant as to each of the real estate of this case, it would be a restoration order to the part which was not the initial joint security of BB, and it would result in a violation of fairness. Therefore, it is reasonable to cancel fraudulent act and order compensation to the extent of the value.

B. Scope of revocation of the fraudulent act and compensation for its equivalent value

(1) Meanwhile, the scope of revocation of a fraudulent act is limited to the amount of the creditor's claim, and where restitution is made by means of equivalent compensation, the amount of compensation is limited to the amount of the creditor's claim, and eventually, the revocation of a fraudulent act and compensation for value should be limited to the smaller amount between the creditor's preserved claim and the amount of the joint collateral value of the object of the fraudulent act and the amount of the creditor

(2) Market price at the time of closing argument of each real estate of this case

On November 30, 2010, the market price of each of the instant real estate at the time of the instant fraudulent act, as seen earlier, is the fact that the total market price of each of the instant real estate was an OOO, and the circumstances where the market price particularly fell, are not shown to have been confirmed as the same amount on September 12, 2013, which is the date of closing argument in the current trial (as at the time of the instant fraudulent act, the market price of each of the instant real estate at the time of the instant fraudulent act is deemed not to have been reflected in the value increase due to artificial construction, and there is no special determination as to the value increase due to artificial construction).

(3) Whether the secured claim amount of the right to collateral security is deducted

According to the court below's determination that the total amount of secured claims provided to the general creditors for common security among those immovable property shall be calculated by deducting the amount of secured claims, and if a fraudulent act is revoked, the amount of secured claims to be compensated for shall be calculated by deducting the amount of secured claims from the value of each of the immovable property at the time of the conclusion of fact-finding proceedings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da41490, Sept. 7, 199), and that the amount of secured claims provided at the time of the conclusion of fact-finding proceedings shall be deducted within the scope of the maximum amount of claims available at fact-finding proceedings, and that the total amount of secured claims provided to the general creditors at the time of the conclusion of fact-finding proceedings shall be deducted from the total amount of 300 won at the time of the fraudulent act, and that the total amount of secured claims provided at the time of the conclusion of fact-finding proceedings shall be deducted from the market value of each of the real property at 30O's market value, as stated above.

(4) Whether a tax deduction is made

If a legal act on real estate is cancelled on the ground that it is a fraudulent act, and if compensation for value is ordered to restore the real estate to its original state, tax has a right to be paid in preference to general claims under Article 99 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes, and the seizure on the real estate before fraudulent act has been made, and thereafter the seizure on the real estate has been released after payment, the tax should be deducted from the joint collateral value of the real estate.On the other hand, the current tax law, such as the Framework Act on National Taxes, the National Tax Collection Act, and the Framework Act on Local Taxes, does not have any provision on the mutual priority between taxes, so that in principle, all tax claims including national and local taxes are identical in the collection order, but as exceptions thereto, the Framework Act on National Taxes and the Framework Act on Local Taxes provide that the order of collection is equal (Article 36 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 101 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes). The legislative purpose of the attachment priority is to grant the fixed number of real estate creditors with the heat of tax collection (see the Supreme Court Decision 207Da1187, July 27, 2071, 2071).

According to the overall purport of evidence No. 2, evidence No. 17, and evidence No. 2, and evidence No. 17, and each of the statements and arguments No. 2, and OO. 301 and No. 303 had been registered for tax delinquency on January 13, 2010 through August 10, 2010, and BB had been registered for seizure No. 301 and No. 303 for tax delinquency, and BB had been paid to OO on January 29, 201, and OOOO on December 10, 201, and on June 16, 201, it can be recognized that OOO was cancelled on June 17, 201 (i.e., for tax delinquency). According to the above facts, O. 201 and O.200 shall not be deducted from O.29.

(5) Sub-committee

Therefore, the limits of revocation of the fraudulent act in this case shall be set up in OOO won, which is the amount of the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on each of the real estate in this case, deducted OOOO won, which is the amount of the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on each of the real estate in this case from the value as at the time of closing the argument of each of the real estate in this case, and OO won, which is the amount of the secured debt of the plaintiff 1-A-(1) + OO won, which is the amount of the secured debt of the right to collateral security in this case + 1-A-2(2). Therefore, the sales contract in this case concluded between the defendant and BB shall be revoked within the limits of OOO won, and the defendant shall be obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following the conclusion of the judgment in this case to the day of complete payment.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.