In light of the fact that a taxation claim exceeds active property, etc., the defendant was 2010.

12. The total amount of KRW 260,00,000 that was remitted on September 10 through January 19, 201 and January 19, 201 is formally bb.

It is reasonable to see that the amount actually donated to the Defendant only after having received d's account.

this is a fraudulent act that deepens the insolvent condition of Aa, and the intention of Aa to do so.

It is ratified by the impeachment decision, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary.

B) As to this, the defendant is working as the vice president of the e industry as the e industry corporation, and that defendant.

Aa lend money to aa from time to time whenever the financial situation is difficult, and Aa lend money to the defendant

Act of paying money from September 2008 to December 8, 2010, e industry, bb, and new corporation

174,245,560 won in total that transfers money to aa by means of remitting money to the account in the name of the present name.

It argues that it does not constitute a fraudulent act merely because it is a repayment act with respect to loans.

However, money transferred by the Defendant to the account in the name of the e industry, bb, or cc, corporation

Defendant’s assertion that this constitutes loans to father Aaa does not constitute evidence to acknowledge this.

There is no longer (in addition, even if the assertion is based on its own claim, more than the remaining loan that is acknowledged by itself.

Since it has received a large amount of money as a repayment, there is no explanation to obtain it, and the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, each monetary donation contract between aa and the defendant is revoked as a fraudulent act.

of this title. The defendant, who is a beneficiary, shall restore to its original state 260,000,000 won and its objection

The rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day after the judgment becomes final to the day of full payment.

Damages for delay shall be payable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

section 3.

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

(a) Relation A to the Defendant, etc.

1) Aa and B are married couple, and the defendant is between B and private villages, and c is a person who is a representative director in the name of e industry in the name of e industry in which Aa is substantially operated with the same birth of Aa.

2) And D D as the kind of fff, cc's wife, upon the request of fff.

A person who opened a credit union account (132-060-964837) in his/her name and lends it to aff.

(b) Formation, etc. of taxation claims;

1) A around November 30, 2010, around 30, 2010, transferred real estate owned by it to 2,890,000,000 won (2,00,000 won on November 11, 2010, intermediate payment of KRW 300,000 on November 23, 2010, and the remainder payment of KRW 2,390,000,00,000 on December 2, 2010.

2) On October 201, 2013, the details of national tax delinquency as of October 1, 2013, including transfer income tax related to the transfer of the instant real estate, are as listed below (hereinafter “instant taxation claims”).

Notice of the due date for the payment of the tax items to be reverted to the current amount in arrears;

(Establishment Date of Tax Liability) Global Income Tax on August 31, 2010, 209: (i) December 31, 201; (ii) global income tax on December 31, 201; (iii) global income tax on December 31, 2010; (iv) global income tax on November 31, 201, 31, 337, 150 1,922; (iv) global income tax on June 30, 2010; (v) securities transaction tax on April 4, 2011; (v) 50,52052, 030 on December 14, 2010; and (v) global income tax on December 30, 2010 and April 70, 2010; (v) global income tax on August 15, 2015; and (v) global income tax on August 31, 2018;

(c) An act of disposal, etc. in aa

1) A on December 2, 2010, transferred the remainder of KRW 2,390,00,000 from Ggggg of a Co., Ltd. to ah Bank account (Account Number 270-***-02-027) in his own name, and subsequently, the sum of KRW 1,664,954,263 (= KRW 1,366,03,035 + + KRW 288,921,228 + KRW 10,000 + KRW 10,000 on December 3, 2010 + KRW 430,00,000 (= KRW 400,000 + KRW 30,000,000) in his own name + KRW 1,664,035,000 on the same day + KRW 288,000,000 on the following day (= each of the following amount).

2) Afterward a deposit of KRW 210,00,00 in the above account on December 8, 2010 with a face value of KRW 50,00,00,000 (the check number of KRW 4 and face value of KRW 160,000,000 (the check number of KRW 4124876). After a deposit of KRW 210,000,000 in each of the above accounts, on December 9, 2010, the following day was made on December 9, 200. The deposit of KRW 50,00,000 from the above account of KRW 293-**10,000,00 from the Defendant’s j Bank account (the check number of KRW 304****204-259,200)* the Defendant’s account transfer of KRW 160,000-10,200 following the following day.

3) Meanwhile, on December 3, 2010, Aa deposited KRW 355,00,000, out of KRW 400,000,000, which was deposited from the account as described in the foregoing paragraph (1) of this Article, as a check. Aa deposited KRW 160,000,000, out of which was deposited in the dd’s account on December 15, 201, and deposited KRW 50,00,000 from the d’s account on January 19, 201 to the Defendant’s j bank account.

(d) the status of the property in aa;

On the other hand, aa does not have any property other than KRW 217,077,691 in the balance on the account as described in the above paragraph (1) around December 8, 2010. There is no ground for recognition, the fact that there is no ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Assertion and determination

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff donated cash of KRW 260,000,000 in total to the Defendant through money laundering through the accounts of B and D in excess of debt, which constitutes a fraudulent act. Therefore, the above donation contract shall be revoked, and the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for the equivalent amount of KRW 260,000,000,000, as it is the restoration to its original state.

2) The defendant's assertion

Since the Defendant received money from b and dd and received money from b and d, it cannot be a fraudulent act under Aa (non-existence of a donation contract). Even if aa is deemed to have paid the above money to the Defendant, it is merely an act of performing the obligation to repay loans of KRW 174,245,560, the sum of which the Defendant lent to Aa, from September 208 to December 8, 2010, by means of remitting it to the accounts in the name of e industry, b and ccc, a corporation from December 8, 2010, does not constitute a fraudulent act.

B. Determination

(i)the occurrence of preserved claims;

According to the above facts, the instant taxation claim was already established on December 9, 2010 through January 19, 201, and around October 10, 201, and there was a high probability of the occurrence of legal relations that form the basis of the relevant claim and the possibility of the near future claims from that time, and the Plaintiff’s taxation claim in this case was established due to the realization of such probability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53437, Nov. 12, 2009). This can be the preserved claim in the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act.

2) The establishment, etc. of fraudulent act

(a) Further to the above facts, the following circumstances, i.e., (a) was 2,390,000 won from g on December 2, 2010, but most of the accounts were deposited before December 8, 2010 (it is not known that the offices were 0,07,691 won or 00,000 won from 00,000 won from 0.0,000 won from 0,000,000 won from 10,000,000 won from 0,000,000,000 won from 0,000,000 won from 0,000,000 won from 0,000,000 won from 0,000,000 won from 0,000,000 won from 10,000,000 won from 0,000 won from 20,000.