A. Defendant Kang Tae-tae shall pay to the Plaintiff of Lee Jong-tae and the Plaintiff 17,63,874 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Kang Tae-tae are dismissed.

3. The Plaintiff’s appeal and the Defendant’s Lee Dong-young’s appeal are all dismissed.

3. Each appeal cost incurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Lee Dong-dong shall be borne by each party, and 60% of the total litigation cost incurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Kang Tae-dong shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant Kang Tae-dong

The contract of donation concluded on December 27, 2006 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet between Lee ○○ and Defendant Lee ○○○ shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 80,535,498. Defendant Lee Dong-young shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 80,535,498 with interest of KRW 80,535,498 as well as at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment. Defendant Kang Seo-tae shall perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on January 6, 2007 with respect to the real estate listed in

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant Lee Il-young is modified as follows. The purport of the judgment against the defendant Lee Il-young is as stated in the following.

B. The Defendants

(1) Defendant Lee Dong-young

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part of the judgment against Defendant ○○ was revoked. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant ○○○ is dismissed.

(2) Defendant Kang-tae

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant Kang-tae shall be revoked. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Kang-tae shall be dismissed.

A. From January 1, 2002 to June 30, 2006, Lee ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-dong to sell products by forming a ID and passbook in the name of another person, such as Nowon-gu, and selling the products in the Internet shopping mall ○○○○○○-dong, a trade name called “○○○○○○” from January 1, 2002 to June 30, 2006. Accordingly, the value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax did not have been reported and paid from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2004.

B. On December 22, 2006, the director of the tax office affiliated with the Plaintiff sent 20.3 notice to the Nowon-gu 200.1. to December 22, 2006, 2000 to December 2005, 1,498,507, and no other related tax return such as value-added tax was filed. If a explanatory material is submitted, and if a explanatory material is not submitted, it is expected that taxes will be imposed. The actual business owner of the Internet shopping mall was the ○○, one of the husband of the defendant Lee 200, 300, 2050, 207, 207, 204, 207, 305, 207, 204, 207, 207, 305, 204, 207, 205, 207, 207, 204, 207.

C. On December 27, 2006, 2006, this money entered into a contract on the donation with the Defendant Lee Jong-dong (hereinafter “the instant donation contract”) on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). On December 28, 2006, the Busan District Court completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Busan District Court No. 47557, Dec. 28, 2006. On January 9, 2007, Lee Jong-dong community credit cooperatives established a right to collateral security with the maximum debt amount of KRW 91 million with respect to the instant real estate and KRW 70 million with loans from ○○ Bank Co.,,, Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Bank”), the secured debt amount of KRW 39,464,500,000,000 (hereinafter “the secured debt amount”) established on the instant real estate as of December 27, 2006.

라. 또한 피고 이○숙은 2007.1.16. 피고 강○태와 사이에 근저당권설정계약을 체결하고, 같은 날 부산지방법원 중부산등기소 젭수 제1559호로 채권최고액 5,000만 원, 근저당권자 피고 강○태로 한 근저당권(이하 이 사건 근저당권이라고 한다)을 설정해 주었다.

E. On January 19, 2007, E. ○○ and Defendant Lee ○○○ filed a divorce report.

F. Meanwhile, the market price of the instant real estate is KRW 120 million at the time of the instant donation contract and consultation divorce, and KRW 110 million at the time of the closure of the pleadings of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap evidence Nos. 10 through 15, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

In principle, a claim that can be protected by a person holding a right of revocation should have arisen before the obligor performs a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. However, there is a high probability that at the time of the juristic act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis of establishment of the claim, and that at the time of the juristic act, the claim is created in the near future, and where a claim is actually created in the near future due to the realization of the possibility, the claim can also be preserved claim. According to the facts acknowledged above, the basic legal relationship of the claim of this case can be established by omitting the value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax from 2002 to 2004, and it was highly probable that the tax claim of this case should be established based on the above legal relationship in the near future, because the obligor was aware of the fact of tax investigation from No. 00 who lent the name of the business owner, etc., and it was highly probable that it was not possible to do so.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

This case’s gift agreement constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to general creditors, including the Plaintiff, on the ground that the instant real estate, which is the only real estate, was donated to Defendant Lee ○○○○○○, constitutes a fraudulent act. Since this case’s gift agreement constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s property status, and the Plaintiff’s explanation of taxation data on Nowon-gu, and immediately after the contact with ○○○○○○, a real business entity, was made, and immediately after this case’s gift agreement was concluded and the registration of transfer was made, the obligor’s bad faith is recognized. The Defendant Lee ○, a beneficiary to whom the instant real estate was donated, and the subsequent purchaser, who was established the instant collateral security from

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

(1) Defendant ○○○’s assertion of unique property

Although Defendant Lee Jong-ok asserts to the effect that the instant real estate is one’s own unique property, and it is not a fraudulent act because it was returned after being entrusted to Lee ○○○○, the husband, but was divorced, it is not a fraudulent act. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant real estate was a unique property of Lee ○○○○○○, the Plaintiff’s property, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it ( even if so, in light of the size of the instant real estate’s business, which served as the basis for the taxation claim, and the fact that consultation was mixed at the time eight years have elapsed after the acquisition of the instant real estate, it shall be deemed that this ○○○○ was prevented from reducing the amount of the instant real estate through cooperation in the maintenance of the said peculiar property or cooperate in increasing it, and therefore, it can be the object of division of property, and therefore, Defendant Lee Il-young’

(2) Claim for division of property following divorce between Defendant 00 and Defendant 20

Defendant ○○ asserts that this case’s real property was transferred under the pretext of division of property, consolation money, and child support while mixing with ○○○ Money, so it does not constitute a fraudulent act.

In light of the fact that division of property following divorce is a liquidation of common property formed through mutual cooperation between both parties during marriage, support for the other party is not a system that has the nature of supporting the other party. As a result of reducing joint security against general creditors by transferring a certain property to a spouse while a debtor in excess of debt is divorced and transferring a certain property to his/her spouse through division of property, barring any special circumstance that the division of property is excessive beyond a considerable degree pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, it shall not be revoked as a fraudulent act. However, if there are special circumstances that deem the division of property to be excessive beyond a considerable degree, such excess

In the instant case, according to the Plaintiff’s statement Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8 evidence, and the purport of the testimony and the entire argument of the witness Lee ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ and Lee ○○○ had maintained de facto marital relations since 1979, and had caused one her married life under the chain after completing the marriage report on Oct. 26, 1992. ② Defendant Lee ○○○ had frequently visited Japan during the marriage period, and operated an economic activity related to the imported products. ② Defendant Lee ○○○○ also operated the business on a significant scale. ③ However, this case’s assertion that this case’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ had transferred the real property under the name of Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○’s accommodation, which had been subject to criminal punishment on several occasions, to have agreed on the property division of this case’s real property under the name of Defendant ○○○○○○○.

In light of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff’s business size of Lee ○○ Savings, along with Defendant Lee ○○○’s accommodation; and (b) around September 27, 2002, during the marriage period, the Defendant Lee ○○○ acquired the right to sell the apartment located in Gyeonggi-do ○○○○○○○ apartment and disposed of it; and (c) the Plaintiff disposed of it, the Plaintiff has the burden of proving that there are special circumstances to deem that the entire contract of this case is an excessive division of property out of the entire contract of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da14101, Jul. 28, 2000; 200Da25569, Sept. 29, 200).

(3) Determination as to Defendant Kang Tae's bona fide defense

Defendant Kang Tae-tae, on January 4, 2007, lent KRW 35 million to Defendant Lee Jong-so, and only received the instant collateral security establishment, and did not know the fact that the instant donation contract was a fraudulent act.

In light of the evidence evidence No. 12, the following facts are found to have been proved to have been remitted to the account of the defendant Lee Jong-ok on January 4, 2007. In order for the creditor to seek revocation of a legal act against the beneficiary as a fraudulent act, and for the subsequent purchaser to restore the original state to the original state, the subsequent purchaser's bad faith refers to the fact that the act would prejudice the creditor at the time of the subsequent purchase, i.e., that is, the awareness that the subsequent purchaser met the objective requirements of the fraudulent act. Therefore, in determining the subsequent purchaser's bad faith, the issue is only whether the subsequent purchaser knows the existence of the legal act between the debtor and the beneficiary at the time of the subsequent purchase. In light of the fact that the defendant Kang Jong-tae's attitude was between Lee Jong-ok and the elementary school, it is difficult to find that the subsequent purchaser's testimony was insufficient to acknowledge that the subsequent purchaser's bad faith, which is the subsequent purchaser, reversed the presumption of the defendant Lee Jong-ok's attitude, and there is no evidence to find otherwise.

(d) The method of cancelling a fraudulent act and restoring it to original state;

In the event that a fraudulent act was committed with respect to a real estate on which a mortgage is established, such fraudulent act shall be deemed only to be established within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured claim amount of the mortgage from the value of the real estate. Therefore, in the event that the registration of creation of a mortgage is cancelled due to repayment, etc. after a fraudulent act, the fraudulent act would be cancelled and restore the real estate itself, which would go against the fairness and fairness, and may only cancel the fraudulent act and order compensation for the value of the real estate within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured claim amount of the mortgage from the value of the real estate. This legal principle applies to the beneficiary, as well as to the subsequent purchaser who acquired the right to collateral after the fraudulent act. In the case of a subsequent purchaser who acquired the right to collateral after the fraudulent act, the subsequent purchaser shall be liable for the value of the profits he/she takes, i.e., the secured claim amount of the right to collateral security and the secured claim amount of the right to collateral security (which are within the limit of the secured claim amount of the subsequent purchaser).

In this case, at the time of the instant donation contract, the instant real estate was already set up as a collective security, the upper limit of the national bank’s claims amounting to 52 million won, and the said collective security was cancelled after the instant donation contract. Thus, at the time of closing the argument of the instant real estate at the time of the instant donation contract, KRW 11,000,000,000, deducting the actual secured claim amounting to 39,464,502 won from KRW 70,535,498, which is the remainder after deducting the actual secured claim amounting to 1/40 from KRW 70,633,874 [ [10,00 - KRW 110,00 - KRW 39,464,50] x 1/4,000] x x 1/4,000, which is the joint secured claim amount of the subsequent purchaser’s secured claim.

Therefore, the gift contract of this case shall be revoked within the limit of 17,633,874 won. The defendants are obligated to pay to each plaintiff 17,633,874 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment is finalized to the day of complete payment.

Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no ground. Since the part of defendant's Gangwon-do in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, the part of the appeal by the defendant Gangnam-do in the judgment of the court of first instance is partially accepted, and the part of the defendant's Gangwon-do in the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as stated in Paragraph 1, and the part of the defendant's Lee Dong-do in the judgment of the court of first instance is justified with the conclusion as above. Therefore, each