1. A donation contract concluded on June 18, 2018 with regard to each real estate share stated in the separate sheet between the Defendant and B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B did not pay taxes of KRW 236,160,50 in total as shown in the following table:

B. B entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant, who is the ASEAN on June 18, 2018, on each of the real estate shares listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “shares of each of the instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant donation agreement”), and completed each registration of ownership transfer as stated in paragraph (2) of the order to the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “each registration of ownership transfer of this case”).

At the time of June 2018, B’s active property was KRW 21,674,400, total share of each of the instant real property, and the Plaintiff was liable for tax liability of KRW 236,160,500.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. Unless there are special circumstances, the obligor’s act of gratuitous donation of real estate to another person, which is the only property of himself/herself, becomes a fraudulent act against the obligee, and as such, in cases where such donation constitutes a fraudulent act objectively, the obligee is presumed to have been malicious to the beneficiary, so unless the beneficiary proves that he/she acted in good faith at the time of the donation, the obligee may cancel the donation and claim restitution for the subsequent

In addition, in recognizing the good faith of the beneficiary, objective and acceptable data should be supported in light of the basic principles of the burden of proof, and it should not be concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, only with the unilateral statement of the debtor or a statement that is merely a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74843, Feb. 14, 2008).

According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim 1, B donated each of the instant real estate shares, the only property under excess of the obligation, to the Defendant, and thus, the instant donation agreement constitutes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance.