Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The agreement between the defendant and the non-party B on the division of property between December 18, 2009 shall be revoked within the limit of 000 won. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day after the day when the judgment of this case is finalized to the day of complete payment.

【Purpose of Appeal】

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim.

In this case, in order to preserve tax claims against LeeB, the debtor, against the defendant on December 18, 2009, the plaintiff asserts that the amount of property division stipulated in the property division agreement entered into with the defendant on December 18, 2009 constituted a fraudulent act, and that the plaintiff's right of revocation constitutes part of the property division agreement (within the limit of 000 won equivalent to the tax claim within the limit of the amount exceeding 50% of the net property value among the profits acquired from the property division agreement) and the claim for compensation equivalent to the amount of the cancelled value. The judgment of the first instance court was accepted by the plaintiff's claim, and the defendant appealed against this.

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, the part of Article 2-2(b) of the judgment of the first instance is changed as follows, and the part of the 10th 13th 10th 10th 4th 4th 12th 4th 4th 12th 4th 4th 12th 4th 4th 12th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 1

The following "B. Determination

1) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, and the following facts can be found in evidence (A to 9, A10-1, A14-1, 2, A15, and B-1 to 10).

A) On May 25, 2010, this BB, the former husband of the Defendant, made an explanation to the effect that, at the request of the director of the Ansan Tax Office affiliated with the Plaintiff, the Defendant paid KRW 000 (300, 000, 000, 000, and 000) to the Defendant, among the transfer price of the instant real estate in Ansan Tax Office, the Defendant used the credit loan amount of KRW 000, 000, and 000,000, including the credit loan of KRW 00,000, and the credit card use amount of KRW 00,000, to the card company.

B) On June 18, 2010, the Busan District Tax Office requested a follow-up investigation on the following facts: “In order to determine that specific financial research on the authenticity of the bonds and the user’s actual use of the bonds is necessary as a result of an investigation into the materials establishing the use of the funds by this BB, it is necessary to conduct a specific financial investigation on the amount of financial obligations in relation to the repayment of the loans, and that the repayment period for the bonds in relation to the repayment of the bonds, the date of payment of interest, and the documents establishing the specific use of the bonds, etc.; and on June 18, 2010, the Jungbu District Tax Office requested on the following grounds: “The failure to pay the funds after the preliminary return of the high-amount transfer income tax return is presumed to have been suspected of evading the disposition on default.”

C) On July 5, 2011, the Central Regional Tax Office: (a) verified the authenticity of the BB’s financial status and materials submitted by the BB, such as requesting financial institutions to provide financial transaction information to the B; (b) conducted financial investigations; and (c) filed the instant lawsuit on September 5, 201.

D) Meanwhile, according to Article 86 of the National Tax Collection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11125, Dec. 31, 201) and Article 83 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 23593, Feb. 2, 2012), and Article 83 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 23593, Feb. 2, 2012), the director of the tax office shall make disposal of deficits in cases where the whereabouts of the delinquent is unknown or where it is not possible to collect taxes due to the existence of the delinquent, and where other seizable assets are found, the director of the tax office shall cancel the disposal of deficits and continue the disposition of arrears. Accordingly, the disposal of deficits has the meaning of internal suspension of the exercise of the collection right for a certain period of time.

2) However, the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation in the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation refers to the date when the obligee became aware of the requirements for obligee’s right of revocation, and immediately became aware of the obligor’s fraudulent act, and if the obligee knew of the cause for revocation, it cannot be presumed that the obligor was merely aware of the fact that the obligee conducted a disposal of the property, and that the obligee was aware of the existence of specific fraudulent act, and that the obligor was aware of the intention to use the property, and that there was no other evidence that the obligor would have known of the objective fact of deception (see Supreme Court Decision 202Da23857, Sept. 24, 2002). In view of the above facts, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff had no other reason to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had used the property in arrears before the date of this case’s disposal of property was conducted by the obligor’s tax evasion, and that there was no need to verify the existence of the Plaintiff’s property division as well as the circumstances under which the Plaintiff would not have used the property division.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable. The judgment of the first instance, which received the plaintiff's claim, is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.