2. The defendant shall execute the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of real estate listed in the separate sheet to South ○○ by reason of the revocation of fraudulent act.

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

A. The remaining ○○ is a business operator who operates a speculative game site in the trade name of ○○○○○dong 317-O from January 25, 2001 to September 11, 2007, and the defendant is the wife of ○○○○ Computer Gameland.

B. In operating the above game room, the South ○○○ Tax Office, under-reported and paid the value-added tax for a period of one year in 2006. Around April 2007, the Plaintiff’s head of ○○san Tax Office, around December 31, 2007, passed a correction resolution regarding the increase of the value-added tax for a period of one year in 2006 to KRW 124,69,390 on the date the tax liability was established, and around that time, notified the South ○○○.

C. On the other hand, on January 18, 2007, South ○○ has completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the above donation (hereinafter “the donation contract of this case”) after it was donated to the Defendant, the wife of which was the only property (hereinafter “the real estate of this case”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20340, Jan. 19, 2007>

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Evidence No. 7-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since the plaintiff knew of the existence of the gift contract of this case at around April 2007 at the time of the resolution to correct the value-added tax against South ○○, and then filed a lawsuit to cancel the fraudulent act after the exclusion period of one year from this time. However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff knew that the plaintiff had concluded the gift contract of this case at the time of the resolution to correct the value-added tax. Thus, the above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. Judgment on the merits

(1) 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, where a claim has been created as a result of its realization in the near future, the claim may also be subject to the obligee’s right of revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da42957, Nov. 8, 2002).

According to the above facts, although the plaintiff's taxation claim pursuant to the above amendment resolution of the value-added tax at the time of the gift contract of this case did not have yet occurred, the sales amount of ○○n has already been determined at the time of the fraudulent act from January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006, and thus, the obligation to pay the value-added tax has already been established. Thus, it was highly probable that the plaintiff's taxation claim should be additionally established through the amendment resolution unless the remaining ○○n did not report the value-added tax properly. In fact, the possibility of the plaintiff's claim was realized by the correction resolution because the remaining ○n did not report the value-added tax properly, and the plaintiff's claim was established. Thus, the plaintiff's taxation claim pursuant to the above amendment resolution of this case

(2) The establishment of the fraudulent act and the intention to commit the act

The Defendant’s donation of the instant real estate, which is the only property of the obligor, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is the obligee, barring any special circumstance. Considering the circumstances at the time of the instant donation contract, etc., the intent of the Defendant, who is the obligor, is recognized, and the Defendant’s bad faith, who is the beneficiary, is presumed.

In regard to this, the defendant argued to the purport that the plaintiff's assertion is unfair since the defendant constitutes a bona fide beneficiary who received the instant real estate on the premise of divorce with his own South ○hee, or that the instant real estate is a property trusted in trust with the South ○hee and the defendant's public property or the defendant's property to South ○hee, but it is not sufficient to recognize only the statement of No. 1, and there is no other

Therefore, the gift contract of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

(3) Methods of reinstatement

As a result of the cancellation of the gift contract of this case, the Plaintiff is seeking the implementation of the registration procedure for direct ownership transfer of the real estate of this case in South ○○.

According to the evidence evidence No. 3, Nov. 12, 2007, which is the date of the donation contract of this case, the creditor may seek against the beneficiary compensation in lieu of returning the original property and seeking the return of the original property. In this case, the creditor may seek the cancellation of the registration in the name of the beneficiary or seek the transfer registration of ownership directly against the beneficiary against the beneficiary on the ground of the debtor's revocation of ownership transfer registration procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5379, Feb. 9, 2001).

Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.