A. The contract of donation concluded on February 13, 2012 between the defendant and the B (resident registration number: 000000) shall be revoked.

B. On February 13, 2012, the Defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the transfer of ownership as the receipt No. 13160 on February 13, 2012 to the Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court, the registration office,

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

Grounds of Claim

1. Formation of preserved claims;

(a) Circumstances of taxation;

The Director of the Korea Tax Office under the Plaintiff shall conduct a trade order-related investigation on September 10, 201 for the first taxable period of 2008 - September 10, 201, by November 7, 2011, and notify the payment deadline of KRW 000 as of February 29, 201, although he/she did not pay by the deadline for filing a lawsuit and did not pay by the deadline for filing a lawsuit, the amount of arrears of Non-Party YB is KRW 000. (Evidence 1)

[Attachment 1: Non-Party B's amount in arrears at present on August 9, 2012]

(Omission of List)

B. Establishment of preserved claims

The national tax notified in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "national tax of this case") is value-added tax and global income tax levied after the investigation into the transaction order of the non-party YB, and this is a national tax for which a voluntary return is made, and there is no defect that the tax liability was established before February 13, 2012, for which the plaintiff seeks its revocation.

2. Fraudulent act;

On February 13, 2012, 2012, after the date the liability to pay the above preservation claim was established, Nonparty B had the Defendant KimA registered the transfer of ownership under the head of Suwon District Court No. 13160 on the ground of donation (Evidence A2).

3. Intention and bad faith of the defendant;

From September 10, 201 to November 7, 2011, Nonparty 2 knew that the Plaintiff would be notified of high-amount national taxes by conducting an investigation related to the transaction order from the Port Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control from September 10, 201 to Nov. 7, 201, and was aware on February 13, 2012, prior to the due date for payment of national taxes, in order to escape the Plaintiff from taking a disposition on default of real estate seizure, etc. due to the said default of national taxes, Nonparty 2 had the instant real estate owned by the Defendant KimA, and thereby caused the situation where the Plaintiff, who is a tax claim, was unable to obtain the satisfaction of the tax claim. Defendant KimB’s spouse becomes aware that the amount of national taxes will be notified after the due date for the payment of national taxes in arrears was established, and that the instant real estate gift act was a fraudulent act and that Nonparty 2’s intent was expressed in the case of Nonparty 2’s intention to avoid this.

(A) Evidence No. 3

4. Excess of debts;

At the time of February 13, 2012, Nonparty HaB’s active property as of February 13, 2012, is KRW 000 in aggregate of the standard market price of OOO 000 OOO 00 OOO house underground floor No. 000 in the instant case’s fraudulent act, and the passive property was in excess of KRW 000 in the preserved claim, and the act of transferring the instant real property to the Defendant on the ground of donation was likely to prevent the satisfaction of the Plaintiff’s claim, the tax obligor, by reducing the obligor’s responsible property. (A)

[Attachment 2: Nonparty B’s active property and small property on February 13, 2012]

(Omission of List)

5. The date on which he becomes aware of a fraudulent act;

The fact that the ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate was made under the name of the Defendant was obtained only after the inspection of the list of materials including property (A) on May 21, 2012 in order to examine the status of the property of Nonparty YB in order to arrange the default of national taxes. (No. 4)

6. Conclusion

In fact, the gift contract of the real estate of this case between the non-party in arrears and the defendant, which is deferred as above, was concluded with the knowledge that it would prejudice the plaintiff, who is a tax creditor, in order to be exempted from the disposition of delinquency in payment of national taxes under the above national tax imposed by the Director of the Korea Tax Office, and the defendant also knew the relationship. Thus, the defendant sought revocation of the objection under Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 406 of the Civil Act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation of the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant, which was completed with respect to the real estate of this case by restitution to the plaintiff