2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 600,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final to the day of full payment.

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

A. As the deceased died on January 1, 200 on January 1, 2004, 00: 185-245 Miscellaneous land owned by the deceased, 185-293 Miscellaneous land owned by the deceased, 1,178 miscellaneous land, 185-298 Miscellaneous land and 1,157 miscellaneous land of the same 185-298 miscellaneous land, and 000 miscellaneous land of each of the above above above ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant real estate"), which is the wife of the deceased, was 3/17 shares in the person, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 185-293 miscellaneous land, and 187 shares in each of the above above ground buildings.

B. On March 18, 2004, the inheritors sold 11/17 shares of each of the instant real estate to 00 investment Co., Ltd. on March 18, 2004, and on December 3, 2004, the 000,000,000 sold 3/17 shares of each of the instant real estate to the above 00 investment at KRW 5,280,000,000,000 among the instant real estate, and the 00 investment received KRW 80,000,000 out of the above 00 investment from the above 00 investment.

C. Of the above gold 800,000,000 won received by 000, 600,000 won, 00,000 won was divided into each bank account under the name of the defendant, who is the husband of December 7, 2004, and 300,000 won was deposited in agricultural cooperative 00 points account (125-12-0000), 100,000,000 won (647-02-000), 100,000 points account (647-02-000), 000 points account (4601-00-000), 10,000 points account (4601-0000), 100,000 points (200-100-100-10,000 won).

D. Meanwhile, on June 30, 2004, the inheritor filed a return on the voluntary payment of inheritance tax amounting to KRW 4,614,717,755 on June 30, 2004, and on November 1, 2004, the inheritor filed a return on the voluntary payment of inheritance tax amounting to KRW 3,168,456,703 by correcting the taxable value of inherited property, but did not pay it.

E. Accordingly, on January 3, 2005, the Plaintiff imposed inheritance tax of KRW 3,34,306,050,05 by adding the penalty tax in bad faith to the inheritor. On May 9, 2005, the Plaintiff imposed additional inheritance tax of KRW 3,368,964,69, including the penalty tax in respect of the omitted inherited property and the penalty tax in respect of the return and payment. The inheritor paid KRW 141,30,200 among the above inheritance tax, and the total amount of inheritance tax reaches KRW 7,676,732,280,00.

[Reasons for Recognition] No. 6-1 to 3, Gap evidence No. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) the existence of the right to preserve;

As the Plaintiff asserts that 000 inheritance tax has a claim for inheritance tax, it has already been established at the time of the commencement of inheritance on January 1, 2004 to the inheritor, and since 000 is a 000 inheritor and is jointly and severally liable with other inheritors to pay the above inheritance tax within the scope of his/her inherited property, the Plaintiff’s assertion is reasonable. (In the next day, the Plaintiff imposed inheritance tax on the inheritor amounting to KRW 6,713,270,749 in total twice)

On the other hand, since the defendant's imposition of inheritance tax against the plaintiff's heir is illegal, since 00 is a defense that the plaintiff does not have the duty to pay the inheritance tax, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above defense, and in full view of the purport of the whole arguments in the statement Nos. 1, 2, and 20-1 of evidence Nos. 1, 1, 205, the heir filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal about the disposition of imposition of inheritance tax on April 9, 2005, but all of the appeals were dismissed on the ground that they are not illegal dispositions. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

The plaintiff donated KRW 600,000,000, out of the amount received by the defendant by selling his/her inheritance shares in excess of his/her obligation under the circumstances where 00,000,000 is liable to pay inheritance tax, which is an act of making the creditor lack of joint security or insufficient joint security already in shortage, and thus constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff.

The positive property of 00 is limited to KRW 5,861,235 on December 7, 2004. However, the passive property is limited to KRW 3,168,456,703 even if the heir calculates only the voluntarily reported inheritance tax on November 1, 2004, there is no dispute over the fact that it is up to KRW 3,168,456,703 on December 7, 2004.

However, in light of the above facts, the defendant issued 00 won 20,000 won 10,000 won 20,000 won 10,000 won 20,000 won 10,000 won 10,000 won 20,000 won 10,000 won 20,000 won 10,000 won 20,000 won 10,000 won 20,000 won 10,000 won 20,000 won 10,000 won 10,000 won 20,00 won 10,000 won 10,00 won 20,00 won 20,00 won 10,000 won 10,00 won 20,00 won 20,000 won ,00 won 20,00 won 16,06.

On the ground that the defendant used 00 funds deposited in the bank account under the name of the defendant as operating funds of 00 passengers, it is insufficient to recognize that 000 funds were used by the defendant, or that since the defendant returned most of the above funds to 000, the defendant did not receive a donation of the above funds. Thus, the defendant argued that the defendant did not have received a donation of the above funds. The defendant's testimony of 19, witness Eul's 17, Eul's 15, and Eul's 24 cannot be viewed as being withdrawn from the bank account under the name of the defendant. In light of the fact that there is no evidence to deem that the above funds were deposited in the bank account under the name of 15, Eul's 17, and Eul's 24, and there is no evidence to support that the above funds were used by 000 passengers, or that the above funds were returned to 000,0000 funds, the defendant's assertion that 00 funds were used again after the above funds were returned to the defendant's.

(c) Existence of the intention of piracy;

The plaintiff recognized that 000 in excess of debt is unable to fully satisfy the plaintiff's inheritance tax claims because there is a shortage of joint security or joint security already in shortage at the time of donation of money to the defendant. The plaintiff asserts that 000 in 00 the intention of amnesty is recognized, and that the defendant's intention of amnesty is presumed.

On the other hand, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the basic facts and macroscopic evidence as mentioned above, that is, 000, upon being aware that the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay inheritance tax, the defendant should deposit money into a bank account under the name of the defendant, not a 000 account, such as the defendant's head, and the defendant deposited money into four bank accounts even though it is convenient for the defendant to deposit money in one account without the intent to impair the plaintiff's inheritance tax claim. After then, the defendant converted the above money into a certificate of deposit that is easily commercialized, and used it in the name of the defendant in converting it into a certificate of deposit, not in the name of the defendant, and the defendant was aware that 00 husband was jointly and severally liable to pay inheritance tax. In light of the fact that 00,000, the defendant was ratified at the time of donation to the defendant.

As the defendant paid 000 as inheritance tax, it is argued that 000 and the defendant did not have intention to do so. Accordingly, according to the statements in No. 8-1 through No. 3, 000, the defendant agreed to the effect that 000 shall pay 00 inheritance tax between November 9, 2004 and 300 of the same month, but it is acknowledged that the following circumstances are acknowledged as being comprehensively taken into account of the whole evidences and arguments, namely, that it is merely an internal agreement of the inheritor, and that 000 shall still be jointly and severally paid inheritance tax to other inheritors and the plaintiff, rather, it is agreed to participate in the management of 00 passengers operated by 000 to secure the full payment of inheritance tax, and in light of the fact that the above agreement can be ratified that 00 million won can not be paid inheritance tax, the defendant's assertion that there was no reason to recognize it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the contract of donation of December 7, 2004 between the defendant and 000 constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus the contract shall be cancelled. It shall be restored to its original state, and the defendant shall be obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 600,000,000 won and the amount of delay damages at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the date this judgment became final to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.