1. The sales contract concluded on September 1, 2017 between the defendant and B shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The friendly relationship B and the Defendant were shareholders of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

around 2017, B's holding shares of the above company 100,000 shares were 95,00 shares, and 5,000 shares owned by the defendant.

B. On June 2, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the non-party company of the payment of KRW 398,349,166 of the value-added tax for the first term of June 30, 2017, but the non-party company did not pay the said value-added tax.

C. On September 7, 2017, the Plaintiff, as an oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company, notified the non-party company B of the payment of the value-added tax of KRW 403,414,080 in arrears, which is the second taxpayer of the tax imposed on the non-party company.

On November 22, 2017, Nonparty Company paid KRW 90,909,09,090 of the value-added tax in arrears, and the value-added tax in arrears was KRW 345,730,820.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant taxation claim”).

B on September 1, 2017, the Defendant, who is his/her relative, sold each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On October 13, 2017, the Suwon District Court Registry of the Suwon District Court, as the receipt of No. 143035 on October 13, 2017, completed each of the instant real estate transfer registration (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate transfer registration”) on September 1, 2017.

F. B did not hold any particular active property other than each of the instant real property at the time of the instant sales contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and 11 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the existence of the preserved claim, the instant taxation claim against the Plaintiff B becomes the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (the Defendant’s side does not challenge this point).3.

A. The obligor’s sale of real estate, which is its sole property, is easy for consumption by the relevant legal doctrine.