1.(a)

On October 5, 2010, it was concluded on October 5, 201 with respect to the shares of 1/2 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and B.

1. Basic facts

A. From March 2010 to June 2012, the head of Mapo Tax Office and the head of Yongsan Tax Office respectively notified the Defendant’s husband B of the global income tax and value-added tax totaling KRW 194,892,870 from 208 to 2010 as shown in the attached Table of Default as well as KRW 12 of the global income tax and value-added tax, which accrue from 2008 to 2010, respectively, from August 31, 2010 to June 30, 2012, B did not pay each of the above taxes (hereinafter “each of the instant tax claims”).

B. On the other hand, on October 5, 2010, B donated 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”), and on the same day, B completed the registration of the Seoul Western District Court and the registration of ownership transfer under Article 46813 with respect to the said real estate shares in the Defendant’s future (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer”).

C. Thereafter, on October 13, 2010, B discontinued its personal business (mutual name): C.

However, B did not have any other assets except that the market value of the instant real estate, which is the only real estate at the time of the instant donation contract, is KRW 240 million and the sum of KRW 77,321,633, such as deposit, etc. in the National Bank, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3-2 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff had already been aware of the conclusion of the gift contract of this case one year prior to the lawsuit of this case, as long as the plaintiff had the authority to inquire about the property B, which is the delinquent taxpayer, and that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as the exclusion period has already expired.

B. The “date when the obligee, which is the starting point of exclusion period in exercising the obligee’s right of revocation, becomes aware of the cause of revocation” refers to the date when the obligor becomes aware of the fact that the obligee had committed a fraudulent act while being aware that it would prejudice the obligee, which is not sufficient to simply recognize the fact that the obligor conducted a disposal of the property.