1. The sales contract concluded on March 10, 2010 between the Defendant and B is revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On February 1, 2011, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against B determined and notified the deadline for payment of KRW 25,290,645 of the corporate tax in February 1, 2008, corporate tax in 2009, KRW 2,981,679, and KRW 38,243,100 of the value-added tax in February 28, 2008 on the ground that C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) underreporting the income in 2008 and 2009.

On October 17, 2011, the Plaintiff designated B as the secondary taxpayer for the instant taxation claim (Article 39(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

(hereinafter “instant taxation claim”). The tax liability not paid by Nonparty Company and B is KRW 89,263,280, including additional dues.

B. On March 10, 2010, B entered into a sales contract between B and the Defendant with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) which is one of its own property (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 and 3-1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant’s defense of this case is deemed to have been aware of the grounds for revocation one year prior to the filing of the lawsuit, when deeming that the lawsuit of this case was filed at the expiration of one year from the date of the sale or the date of arrears between B and the date of the disposition of this case. Thus, the lawsuit of this case brought one year after the filing of the lawsuit of this case is unlawful

In the exercise of creditor's right of revocation, "the date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause of revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirement of creditor's right of revocation, that is, the date when the debtor becomes aware of the fact that he/she had committed a fraudulent act

The circumstance required by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was aware of the aforementioned fraudulent act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The defendant's defense is without merit.

3. Determination as to the merits.