Whether there was an intentional intent to harm an obligee;

In order to repay debts to the plaintiff and workers, it is difficult to see that the delinquent taxpayer sold the land at the surrounding market price at the time of the sale, used the sale price for the repayment of debts, etc.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A sales contract concluded on September 11, 2007 with respect to 2,165 square meters between the Defendant and Kim ○○-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, ○○○○○○-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, ○○○○○○○, ○○○-gun, ○○, ○○-gun, is revoked. The Defendant will implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff, which was completed on September 11, 2007

1. Facts without dispute;

On April 2008, the Plaintiff had a tax claim equivalent to KRW 138,000,000,000, including value-added tax and global income tax, as of April 1, 2008. Kim ○, on September 11, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of trade on the same day in the future of the Defendant.

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that selling the land in this case to the defendant, who is the wife, would impair the plaintiff, who is the creditor, and seek the cancellation of the sales contract and restitution.

B. Determination

(1) Whether there is an intention to commit harm

First of all, I will examine whether he/she had an intention to harm the plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of the fact-finding results with respect to the testimony of the witness Kim Jong-chul in Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9 (including each number), and the fact-finding results with respect to the director of the Western Tax Office of the Republic of Korea on September 3, 2007, Kim Jong-chul sold the land of this case to the defendant around September 21, 2007 and received 15 million won on the day of the down payment, and 24 million won on September 11, 2007, respectively. At the time, Kim Jong-chul want to close the business in the case of delinquency in tax payment at the tax office, that the defendant completed the disposal of the land of this case to raise tax payment, and that he was sold to the defendant on the ground that he wanted to grow up with the land of this case. The fact-finding was recognized as having been paid to the remaining workers of this case on September 21, 2007 as global income tax, etc.

In light of the above facts, it is also recognized that Kim○ has sold the instant land at the surrounding market price for the repayment of obligations to the Plaintiff and workers, and used the proceeds from the sale for the repayment of obligations. It is also difficult to view that there was an intention to harm the Plaintiff or some creditors at the time of sale of the instant land.

(2) Whether the defendant acted in good faith or not

Even if there was an intention of deception to ○○ Kim, the above overall circumstances, in particular, at the time of the purchase, the defendant set the purchase price in line with the surrounding market price, and actually paid the price. ② In addition to the registration of seizure on December 7, 2005, which was already cancelled on the ground of cancellation on June 16, 2006, there was no specific point to doubt the credit or financial standing of the Kim Man-young, and ③ Furthermore, even if the defendant was in the face of Kim Man-young, it is difficult to view that at the time of the purchase, the defendant had already been in excess of the debt, and it was a bona fide beneficiary who purchased the above land without knowing the fact that the property of other general creditors was reduced by selling the instant land.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.