It is presumed that the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed if the gift act constitutes a fraudulent act.

An act of donation of only real estate in excess of debt to her husband constitutes a fraudulent act, and if the act of donation constitutes a fraudulent act objectively, it is presumed that the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

1. The contract of donation concluded on October 20, 2006 between the defendant and the Gabo person on each real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on October 23, 2006 by the receipt No. 16464, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, by the Changwon District Court and the Southern Sea Registry of the Republic of Korea.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

The facts stated in the attached list are fifuries which are not disputed between the parties, or which can be recognized in full view of the overall purport of pleadings, and tax claims against the plaintiff's gambling person constitute preserved claims for revocation of fraudulent act. Barring special circumstances, a person who was in excess of his/her obligation, donates his/her only real estate to the defendant who is his/her husband, to the defendant, is a fraudulent act in relation to the general creditors, including the plaintiff, etc., and in cases where the debtor's act of donation to a third party constitutes a fraudulent act objectively, the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed, and the gift contract entered into on October 20, 206 between the defendant and YO must be revoked as a fraudulent act. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of real estate stated in the attached list to

In this regard, the defendant argued to the effect that even though the defendant was divorced due to the problem of gambling and religion but was judged in the future due to the children's future, he did not have any intention of deception because he did not know about the details of delinquency in payment to the plaintiff by Park ○, but there was no evidence to reverse the beneficiary's bad faith, this part of the argument is not accepted.

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted due to reasons.