Revocation of Fraudulent Act

It constitutes a fraudulent act to transfer the sole property of a delinquent taxpayer to his/her predecessor.

1. The sales contract concluded on November 10, 2006 between the Defendant and the leap○○ (○○○○○-○○○○○○○○○○) is revoked.

2. On November 10, 2006, the defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed by the ○○○○○○○○○○○ on the above real estate, with respect to the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. As indicated in the attached sheet, ○○○ is liable to pay the total value-added tax of KRW 43,045,470. However, on November 10, 2006, ○○○○ concluded a sales contract on the real estate listed in the attached sheet, which is the only real estate between the Defendant, who is one’s mother, and the Defendant, as the only real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant under the title of ○○○○○○○○○○ on the same day.

(Evidence) Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Gap's evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Based on the above facts of recognition, the registration of the transfer of real estate by ○○ to the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, which is the obligee, and the Defendant, who is the beneficiary, is presumed to have concluded the above sales contract with the knowledge of such circumstances at that time.

B. As to this, the defendant, who is his husband, lent a total of KRW 17 million (7 million around February 21, 2004, KRW 10 million around April 30, 2004, and KRW 10 million around April 30, 2004) to leap○○○, which is his husband, and the defendant received the above loan claim as consolation money and received it as the above loan claim in consultation with Kim○ on July 20, 2006, and in order to recover the above loan claim, the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed since it was registered in the name of the defendant for the purpose of collecting the above loan claim. Thus, according to Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant's claim is argued to the purport that the defendant's claim should be dismissed, even though it is recognized that the agreement with Kim○ on July 20, 2006 was married with Kim○ on July 20, 2006. The statement in Eul evidence No. 2 through 8 alone alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant was paid consolation money.

C. Therefore, the Defendant’s and leap○○○ on November 10, 2006 revoked the sales contract on the instant real estate, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on November 10, 2006 by the ○○ District Court’s indictment for ○○○○○○○ on the instant real estate.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.

List of Real Estate

(Indication of one building)

○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○ Multi-household multi-household housing with four floors of reinforced concrete

(Indication of Land Subject to Site Right)

○○○-si ○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○-dong 397 square meters

(Indication of Section of Exclusive Ownership)

○○○○○ building reinforced concrete building 29.64㎡

(Indication of Site Right)

20.95/397 of the ownership and site rights.