사해행위취소
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above part shall be dismissed.
1. Basic facts
A. B B’s sales contract and imposition disposition of transfer tax 1) B are as follows: “The instant real estate” encompassing 8,012 square meters and E return 885 square meters in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Dongwon-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
(2) On July 15, 201, the Plaintiff agreed to sell the instant real estate to F and G on July 15, 201, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the said purchaser on July 29, 2011. (2) B did not pay the preliminary return of transfer income tax on the instant real estate on September 27, 201, but did not pay the said preliminary return. As such, the Plaintiff imposed the transfer income tax on B on November 30, 2012 (hereinafter “the instant transfer income tax”).
3) As of the filing date of the instant lawsuit, the arrears amount of the capital gains tax in B is KRW 1,854,681,300. B. The Defendant married with B on February 9, 1977, and agreed on June 15, 201.
2) As to the divorce between the Defendant and B on May 16, 201, the agreement between the Defendant and B that “the Defendant and B shall be divorced, but the Defendant shall be paid KRW 2 billion to the Defendant as a division of property immediately after the divorce procedure is completed” (hereinafter “instant division of property”).
(3) B paid KRW 2 billion to the Defendant by means of remitting the money received as the purchase price of the instant real estate on August 2, 2011 to the Defendant’s deposit account in the name of the Defendant.
(hereinafter referred to as "payment of the amount of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 8, 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); Eul evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 8; and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination
A. The existence of the preserved claim is protected by the obligee’s right of revocation, in principle, if it is required that the claim had arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act, but there has already been a legal relationship which serves as the basis for the establishment of the claim at the time of such fraudulent act, and the near