A. The gift agreement concluded on July 7, 201 between Defendant leB and KimCC regarding KRW 100,000,000 shall be revoked.

B. Defendant HaB shall pay to the Plaintiff 100,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

2. Defendant KimA’s appeal is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant leB shall be borne by the Defendant leB, and the cost of the appeal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant KimA shall be borne by the Defendant KimA.

A. Claim against Defendant KimA

For forest land of XX 92,430 square meters:

1) The trade on June 2, 201 between Defendant KimA and KimCC shall be revoked.

2) Defendant KimA’s receipt No. 7404 of Jun. 3, 2011 to the Daegu District Court Cheongsong Branch Office of Justice KimCC

shall cancel the registration of transfer of ownership completed.

B. Claim against Defendant leB

Defendant 1,00,000,000 won and this decision has become final and conclusive against the Plaintiff.

It shall pay 5% interest per annum from the day after the day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff's appeal against defendant leB

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against Defendant leB is revoked, and between Defendant leB and KimCC

With respect to KRW 100,00,000, the gift contract concluded on July 7, 2011 shall be revoked, and Defendant leB shall be Won

1. 10,00,000 won and 5% per annum from the day after the day when this judgment is finalized to the day of full payment.

pay any money.

B. Purport of appeal by Defendant KimA against the plaintiff

In the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant KimA in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against Defendant KimA.

The dismissal is dismissed.

40,000,000 won out of the above 100,000,000 won which leB received by leB as above

any other 60,000,000 won which was paid as the repayment of such credit, was refunded to KimCC.

Therefore, the payment of the above money is not the most favorable donation, but does not constitute a fraudulent act.

C) Determination

The amount of KRW 40,000,000 out of the above KRW 100,00,000 is the existing loan as Defendant leB’s assertion.

whether the claim is repaid or not, and the remainder of 60,000,000 shall be refunded to KimCC.

We examine whether or not the case was.

by making payments to a specific creditor in accordance with the principal of the obligation under excess of the obligation;

In the event that the joint security of another creditor is reduced, the repayment shall in particular be made by the debtor.

in collusion with the creditors of such creditors, and with the intent of undermining other creditors, and, if so, have not been performed,

In principle, it is not a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da62167, Jun. 15, 2006), however, in light of the following circumstances that are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings as to the witness KimCC’s testimony, the above KRW 40,00,000 as a repayment of the previous obligation, and the above KRW 60,00,000 as a donation, and the testimony of the witness KimCC’s witness, corresponding to the argument of the defendant YoonB that he returned KRW 60,00,00 to the KimCC, is difficult to believe that some of the testimony of the witness KimCC, which is consistent with the argument of the defendant YoonB, was returned to the defendant YoonB.

The evidence submitted by Defendant B, including each description of the evidence Nos. 5 and 8, by itself, Defendant leB

It is insufficient to recognize that 60,000,000 won was returned to KimCC, and evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

No. Therefore, KimCC’s deposit account of Defendant leB via YangD 100,000,000 won

Transferred money was donated to Defendant leB (hereinafter referred to as “the donation of this case”)

It is reasonable to see that such donation is liable for the obligees in excess of the obligor's obligation.

It constitutes a fraudulent act that reduces property (see Supreme Court Decision 201 October 27, 2014).

The intention of the defendant leB is presumed to be the death of 2014da41575) and the defendant leB.

① If Defendant B actually lent money to KimCC, the statement on the loan details is ordinarily consistent. Defendant B did not consistently state its claim on the amount and time of loan. For instance, Defendant B asserted that “B lent KRW 40,000,000 to GimCC on January 1, 201, and lent KRW 60,000,000,000 in total to 10,000,000,000 around March 10, 201, to the Director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office around July 2013 (hereinafter the same shall apply). On the other hand, in the instant lawsuit, Defendant B asserted that “B lent KRW 40,000,000 to GimCC on several occasions from around 209 to September 20, 2010” (hereinafter the same shall apply).

12.Writtens

② The KimCC did not consistently assert the claim regarding the amount of money borrowed from Defendant leB and the timing of borrowing. For instance, from 2013 to 2014, “Defendant leB” was investigated by an investigative agency on charges of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

Around 2010 or around 2011, borrowed KRW 30,000,000,000. The testimony was made at the trial of the party, and the testimony was stated that "the defendant leB borrowed KRW 40,000,000 from September 28, 2010."

③ The KimCC and Kima have a record of having issued a certificate of personal seal impression on September 28, 2010 to Defendant leB stating that “The KimCC shall confirm that it borrowed KRW 40,000,000,000, and if it is not possible to repay it, Kim A shall be held responsible for it.” However, as recognized by the description in subparagraph 3-2, it is difficult to readily conclude that the above certificate of personal seal impression was prepared at the time of the above receipt solely on the basis of the fact that Kim A obtained a certificate of personal seal impression as of the date of the above preparation. Defendant leB as seen earlier.

As such, the question that was submitted to the Director of the Regional Tax Office around July 2013 after the date of borrowing the above loan.

In the letter, unlike the loan amount stated in the above loan certificate, the loan amount of KRW 100,00,000 is claimed as the loan amount of KRW 100,00,000 and the loan amount of KRW 60,00,000 on the loan date, unlike the loan certificate stated in the above loan certificate, was claimed to have paid KRW 40,00,000 on March 10, 201, and the fact that the above loan certificate was not submitted as evidence at the time of the commencement of the investigation into the defendant leB, support the possibility that the above loan certificate was prepared retroactively in order to support the false argument about the loan of the defendant leB after the commencement of the investigation into the defendant leB (the above date is deemed to have been prepared in accordance with September 28, 2010, when the certificate of personal seal impression was issued for separate reasons).

④ Defendant leB submitted to the Director of the Regional Tax Office around July 2013, 2013

The reasons why the KimCC lent KRW 100,000,000 to KimCC in cash are as follows: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22070, March 9, 2010>

On January 2011, 201, KimCC cannot engage in the transaction of passbooks due to the seizure of the OP.

It is argued to the purport that “The direct payment of KRW 40,000,000, and KRW 60,000,000 on March 10, 201, was made in cash.” However, since the above seizure period as alleged by Defendant YoonB, the KimCC received KRW 17,00,000 from the KimA on June 3, 201, which was 1 month prior to the above seizure period, from each of the above withdrawal periods, and received KRW 17,00,000 by account transfer, the above argument by Defendant YoonB on the reasons of lending in cash is highly likely to be false.

5. Claims made in relation to the apartment of this case under the name of Y dry Business.

Defendant B received the registration of establishment of a collateral security on the ground of a contract transfer made on March 14, 201 with respect to the registration of establishment of a collateral security of KRW 716,962,844 in high amount. In this regard, Defendant YB asserted to the effect that “In repayment of the obligation of the KimCC to the Y industry, Defendant YB paid out the amount borrowed by Defendant YB” (the preparatory document dated November 6, 2014), but submitted to the Director of the Regional Tax Office of OOB around July 2013.

In relation to the transfer of the right to collateral security from the questionnaire (No. 7), the "Defendant leB" was not known to him.

There is no fact that the contract was transferred," and the defendant was presented as evidence after the above questionnaire was presented as evidence.

YB Co., Ltd., Ltd., YB, upon full repayment of the secured debt of the said right to collateral security, shall be deemed to have been secured.

It was necessary to cancel the right, but it was not possible to directly cancel it to KimCC.

The right to collateral security in the name of Defendant leB with the intent to resolve by transfer to the guidance.

The defendant changed his argument to the purport that "the preparatory document was previously received on November 13, 2015 (the preparatory document on November 13, 2015)"

The claim of leB is inconsistent and is inconsistent with the contents of the PP answer; and

JB’s assertion of change as above, the transfer, etc. of the right to collateral security in Defendant leB’s name even if it is based on the assertion of change.

YY Construction Business, Inc., intending to cancel the registration of creation of a neighboring Y establishment in the name of Y construction business

Defendant leB because the registration of collateral security was made under Defendant leB’s name at his request.

(1) in the event that the secured claim in respect of the right to collateral security is actually supported by

In light of the fact that the registration of the right to collateral security on the registration of real estate was made;

contract transfer registration in the name of the defendant leB is likely to be false, and the transfer registration in the name of the defendant leB.

Based on B, Defendant B actually owned the claim of KRW 40,000,000 against KimCC.

It is difficult to see it.

① Defendant B was accused of having registered the creation of a false mortgage on the instant apartment in order to help escape from the disposition on default by KimCC. The instant case of criminal complaint was filed against the investigative agency, and the instant case of criminal complaint

the prosecutor in charge of this case, the certificate of loan and the statement of passbook transaction submitted by the defendant leB, and the related suspect

In light of their statements, the charge cannot be deemed to have been filed for the establishment of a false mortgage.

It is recognized that the facts for which a disposition has been taken without evidence (incompetence of evidence). However, the degree of proof for the suspected facts is the degree of proof.

Even if a non-prosecution disposition was rendered in a more strict criminal case, it may be subject to criminal punishment for the plaintiff.

on the ground that the evidence is not adequate to the extent that the evidence is not sufficient, or on the basis of this, Defendant leB

a civil trial shall not be deemed to have been proved to have actually existed the claim, and a civil trial shall not be deemed to have

Persons who are not subject to detention of the fact that the Si is not subject to a non-prosecution disposition due to the suspicion of the Si;

It can be recognized by the conviction that the facts opposed thereto are recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu493 delivered on October 26, 1987).

7. Defendant leB: (a) from the account received to transfer KRW 100,000,000 from July 8, 201, Defendant 10,000.

The plaintiff paid KRW 60,00,000 on July 12, 201, and KRW 30,000,000 on July 13, 201. However, there is no objective evidence to deem that the plaintiff returned KRW 60,000,000 out of the withdrawn money to KimCC. The witness KimCC testified to the purport that "it is known that the plaintiff returned KRW 60,000,000 from Defendant B in cash and deposited it into the financial account in the name of wife Kim A, as the above testimony, the above 60,000,000 won was deposited into the financial account of Kim A, but there is no financial data related thereto, and since Defendant MaB is the friendship of Kim A, it is difficult to submit the above financial data after considering the fact that it is difficult to secure such financial data.

8) There is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant leB received interest from KimCC with respect to loans claimed by Defendant leB, and Defendant leB asserts that Defendant leB received only a meal substitute or a name-saving gift from KimCC or Kima, but did not receive interest.

However, the amount of 40,000,000 won claimed by Defendant PapB to have lent to KimCC.

and interest shall not be paid only to the person who received a meal substitute or a life-saving gift with respect to him/her even though he/she is not a few.

It is somewhat different that it was not urgent.

9) Defendant HaB is a home-based employer that operates the Pianian Institute, even in the case of KimCC and Kima-a-be

upon request, the name of the representative director of www Construction to be registered on the corporate register.

In light of the above circumstances, it appears that there was a close relationship to the extent of lending.

In this regard, it is reasonable that defendant leB participated in the fraudulent act of KimCC.

(d) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Accordingly, Defendant KimA and KimCC’s instant sales contract and Defendant leB and KimCC’s history

The donation must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant KimB, the beneficiary, shall be restored to its original state.

The KimCC is obligated to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the forest of this case, and is a beneficiary.

LB shall pay 100,000,000 won as compensation for value to the Plaintiff, the creditor, and the appellate court

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition or modification as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

【Revised or Additional Parts】

The judgment on the claim No. 5 of the first instance court's judgment No. 3 is changed to '3. Judgment on the claim', and the following is added between 3. 4 and 5 of the first instance court's judgment. 2. Judgment on the ground of this safety objection is changed to 'decision on the claim No. 5. 3.

A. Main Safety Defenses of the Defendants

As KimCC did not pay capital gains tax on each of the instant auction apartments and the instant forest land, the Plaintiff seized real estate in the area of Busan Special Metropolitan City, Busan Special Metropolitan City, Do, Busan Special Metropolitan City, Busan Special Metropolitan City, Do, and two lots of land owned by KimCC on February 16, 2012 through property inquiry to preserve capital gains tax. The Plaintiff, at least around February 16, 2012, was taking measures of seizure as above, to ensure that KimCC disposed of the instant forest land and apartment after the occurrence of capital gains tax, ② the fact that KimCC’s disposal of the instant forest land and apartment, ② the fact that there was a lack of joint security due to the act of disposing of the instant forest and apartment, or that there was a lack of joint security in the state of shortage, and thus, it was impossible for KimCC to satisfy its claims.

Even if it is insufficient for the Plaintiff to be aware of the facts of fraudulent act, solely based on the fact that the Plaintiff was aware of the disposal of the apartment and forest of this case, the KimCC, who was in excess of the debt, did not pay the transfer income tax of this case on June 8, 2012 and July 1, 2012, became aware of the fact that it caused the shortage of joint security by disposing of the forest and forest of this case and thereby, caused the Plaintiff, a creditor of transfer income tax.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit filed on June 11, 2014, which had been over one year or more from the above point of time, is unlawful because it exceeds the exclusion period.

B. Determination

In the exercise of the right of revocation, the “date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation” refers to the date when the obligor becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while knowing that the obligee would prejudice the obligee. This is insufficient to simply know the existence of a fraudulent act, and further, it cannot be presumed that the obligor was aware of the objective fact of the fraudulent act, and that the obligor was aware of the existence of a fraudulent act. Meanwhile, the burden of proof as to the lapse of the exclusion period lies in the obligee’s revocation lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da61280, Oct. 29, 2009; 2009Da47852, Oct. 29, 2009). If the Plaintiff knew that the apartment apartment was a fraudulent act, the Plaintiff did not know of the existence of the fraudulent act and the existence of the right to claim for cancellation of the forest land in this case, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had disposed of the said right to claim for cancellation of the forest land in this case.

○ On the 4th judgment of the first instance court, the following shall be added.

The Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim against KimCC, a preserved claim for revocation of the fraudulent act in this case, was guaranteed by the TTCC architect, the representative director, and that the Plaintiff seized the claim for payment of the remainder of the sales of the apartment house against the house guarantee of the TTT architect, and that the Plaintiff did not know the competition between seizure and the priority order of each claim, etc. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17517, Mar. 3, 201; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Apr. 2, 2011>

(2) If the creditors have the right to preferential payment through the evidence of the 2nd architect office, it cannot be acknowledged as the creditor's right to revoke the creditor's right to revoke the creditor's right to revoke the creditor's right, and in this case, the creditor who exercises the right to revoke the creditor's right to revoke the creditor's right to claim should assert and prove that the secured claim is outside the scope of preferential payment right despite the existence of security right (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da6061, Sept. 4, 2014). However, the creditor's right to preferential payment should be asserted and proved as the other party to the lawsuit for revocation of the creditor's right to claim the above 14 and 16. Considering the above facts, the defendants' assertion that each of the above facts stated in paragraphs (1) and (3) can not be acknowledged, but each of the above evidence and its exercise can only be acknowledged as having been based on the overall purport of the 10th evidence stated in the 2nd auction agreement and the 2nd auction agreement.

○ From 10th to 8th eth 1st eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth g eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth

1) Determination as to Defendant KimA

A) Relevant legal principles

Unless there are special circumstances where the sale of real estate owned by a debtor in excess of debt is carried out at a reasonable price to cover a legitimate repayment to some creditors, the act of selling such real estate and changing it into money which is easy for the debtor to consume is a fraudulent act against the creditor, and the debtor’s intent of deception is presumed (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41850, Jul. 26, 2012).

B) In the instant case:

In light of the above legal principles, the act of converting the forest land of this case into money which is easily consumed by the debtor KimCC, who is in excess of debt, by selling the forest land of this case, shall be presumed to constitute a fraudulent act against a creditor, unless there are special circumstances where the sale was made at a reasonable price to appropriate for a legitimate repayment to some creditors, and the intention of the defendant KimCC and the beneficiary, who are the debtor, shall be presumed to be the intention of the

C) Determination on Defendant KimA’s assertion

As to this, Defendant KimA: (a) sold the forest of this case to Defendant KimA in order to obtain a project financing loan; and (b) paid the transfer income tax, etc. with the purchase price received from Defendant KimA for the purpose of meeting the requirements for the project financing; (c) the instant contract is not a fraudulent act; (d) Defendant KimA concluded the instant contract at the request of the KimCC at a reasonable price for the instant forest due to the reason that Defendant KimA was living in KimCC and land; and (e) Defendant KimA did not know that the instant contract would damage the general creditors of KimCC, and thus, Defendant KimA was a bona fide beneficiary.

First of all, as to the claim that the instant sales contract was for the purpose of continuing the business by paying delinquent taxes and promoting the business, the court of first instance on January 12, 2015

Of reference materials submitted in the certificate of tax payment on August 8, 201, KimCC paid a total of KRW 26,927,520 won (= KRW 15,865,890 + KRW 11,061,630) on June 17, 2011, it is argued that the instant sales contract was made to pay the said taxes. However, if KimCC sold the instant woodland to pay the said comprehensive real estate holding tax as in the above assertion by Defendant KimA, it would be reasonable to pay the said comprehensive real estate holding tax until the purchase price was paid. However, it is difficult to acknowledge that the above comprehensive real estate holding tax payment was made after approximately 17,00,000 won with the purchase price of the instant woodland, and that there was no possibility that the above provision was made for other purpose than the above payment of the said comprehensive real estate holding tax on June 3, 201, and that there was no possibility that the above payment was made to the above Defendant for other purpose than the above 170,000,00.

Next, as seen earlier, Defendant KimA was presumed to be a bona fide beneficiary. As such, Defendant KimBA was responsible for proving its good faith in order to be exempted from its liability. In full view of the statement No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings at KimCC’s testimony, as to ① Defendant KimA was accused with the investigation agency of the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made with respect to the forest land of this case in order to assist KimCC in evading disposition on default. In the above criminal complaint case, Defendant KimA refused to accept the above transfer registration upon request of the KCC and Defendant KimAAA’s construction cost on account of the lack of money, and then, Defendant KimA’s assertion that “this case’s forest land of this case was transferred to Defendant 1 under the name of Defendant Kim Yong-A,” and that there was no possibility that Defendant KimB would have been leased the forest land of this case in the name of Defendant Kim Yong-A, and that there was no possibility that it would have been rent out the forest land of this case in the name of Defendant 1 to his families.”

A) The plaintiff's assertion

As seen earlier, KimCC’s transfer of KRW 100,00,000 to Defendant leB’s deposit account through Defendant leB’s chiD constitutes a fraudulent act inasmuch as he/she, knowing that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, a taxation right holder, made a donation by pretending to repay the above amount to Defendant leB. Even if the payment was made, the act of repayment constitutes a fraudulent act in light of the relationship between KimCC and Defendant leBB, and the degree of the insolvency of KimCC.

In addition, the agreement or repayment of the above 100,000 won by KimCC and the defendant leB, which pretended to be repaid, must be revoked, and the amount equivalent to the above amount should be returned as restitution.

B) Defendant leB’s assertion

That is, there is a duty to pay the amount.

2. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants must be accepted in its entirety on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The part on Defendant KimA among the parts on this conclusion is justified, and as such, the defendant against this conclusion.

The appeal by KimA is dismissed, and the part concerning defendant leB in the judgment of the court of first instance concerning defendant leB is concluded.

as such, the gift of this case is revoked and revoked as a fraudulent act, and Defendant leB

the order to order the payment of the money cited above as compensation for the value, as shown in the Disposition above.

partnership.