1. The contract of gift made on March 12, 2019 between the defendant and the non-party B on each real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s details of national tax claim against Nonparty B, as of October 2019, are as follows.

B. On March 12, 2019, Nonparty B donated real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, and on the same day, Nonparty B completed the registration of ownership transfer for the said real estate on the grounds of the said donation to the Defendant.

C. The Defendant is the mother of Nonparty B, and Nonparty B was in excess of the obligation at the time of March 12, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3, 4, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the Plaintiff’s national tax claim amounting to Nonparty B is KRW 239,015,470, and its claim is established before March 12, 2019, and thus, the obligee’s right of revocation becomes the preserved claim.

B. The “legal act detrimental to the obligee,” which is the requirement for the obligee’s right of revocation and intention of fraudulent act, refers to a juristic act that causes a decrease in the obligor’s assets due to the obligor’s disposal of assets, thereby making it impossible for the obligee to fully satisfy the obligee’s claims because the obligor’s joint security is insufficient or the joint security already insufficient is more deficient. As such, such fraudulent act may be established not only in cases where the obligor has already been in excess of his/her obligations prior to the disposal of assets, but also in cases where the obligor is placed in excess of his/

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da6808, Apr. 29, 2005; 201Da82360, Feb. 23, 2012). According to the facts established earlier, Nonparty B, at the time of the instant donation, can sufficiently be inferred that the instant donation was in excess of its obligation, or that at least it was in excess of its obligation through the instant donation.

Therefore, the instant donation constitutes a fraudulent act.

The debtor's intent to commit a fraudulent act is the subject requirement of the fraudulent act.