1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. In making a decision of imposing corporate tax against C, the director of the North Incheon District Tax Office, etc. under the Plaintiff-affiliated District Tax Office, etc. notified two national taxes (hereinafter “each national tax of this case”) to B who served as the representative director of the above company as follows, but the said national tax has not been paid up until now.

B. B entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendant, the head of December 24, 2008, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant under the name of the Incheon District Court No. 177322, Dec. 24, 2008, as to the instant real estate.

C. At the stage of disposition on deficits of national taxes, the Plaintiff: (a) examined the details of the delinquent taxpayer’s property by using the internal computerized database of the National Tax Service; and (b) prepared a list of data on the delinquent taxpayer’s property and other property whose current status of the instant sales contract was entered on June 9, 2010; and (c) issued a written disposition on deficits on June 15, 2010, along with the aforementioned computerized database data and a review report on the disposition on deficits of import (hereinafter “instant disposition on deficits”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4-2, Eul evidence 4-1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion was sufficiently examined the current status of B’s property as of the date of the instant write-off, and thus, at least, the Plaintiff knew of the existence of the fraudulent act or the grounds for revocation in the process of write-off on June 9, 2010.

A lawsuit for the revocation of a fraudulent act in this case is unlawful as it was filed on December 20, 2013, which was later than one year after the lapse of such one year.

B. The Plaintiff alleged that the instant sales contract was concluded in the course of the instant disposition on deficits, but the Plaintiff requested the Seoul Regional Tax Office to conduct a tracking investigation that the said sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act.