Whether the act constitutes speculative acts

that the national tax would be notified and that the only real estate owned by it is transferred to the wife is a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

1. A. A. The contract of donation concluded on September 5, 2006 between the Defendant and the Jeon○○○ shall be revoked.

B. The defendant will implement the procedure to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on September 5, 2006 by the ○○○ District Court ○○○○○○ registry office ○○○ with respect to the real estate mentioned in paragraph (1).

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) Parties' status relationships;

On March 20, 1975, the defendant reported a marriage with the former ○○ on March 20, 1975, and reported a divorce by agreement around September 19, 2006.

(b) Tax arrears;

Before September 1, 200 to February 27, 2001, the former ○○○○○○○ was a person who was the representative director of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and was served a prior notice of taxation according to the audit results by the head of the ○○○○○○○○○○○ Office around August 17, 2006. The details of the prior notice was served on the former ○○○○○○○ on January 31, 2007 with the payment deadline of KRW 32,638,910 for global income tax for the year 200 and notified each of KRW 87,58,720 for global income tax for the year 201, but did not pay until that time, and thus, national taxes in arrears amount to KRW 128,162,610, including additional dues.

(c) Donation, etc. of real estate;

(1) On September 5, 2006, ○○ donated the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, who is the wife around September 5, 2006, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on donation under ○○○○ District Court No. 51402 on the same day. However, there was no particular property other than the instant real estate at that time.

(2) Meanwhile, at the time of the donation, the right to collateral security, which is the maximum debt amount of ○○○○ Bank, and the maximum debt amount of 13 million won, was respectively set up on the instant real estate at the time of the donation, and the market price of the instant real estate as of January 1, 2006 is 230 million won.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap No. 1 to 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) the existence of preserved claims;

According to the above facts, the plaintiff was notified of prior notice of taxation to ○○ prior to the above donation on August 17, 2006, and there was at least a legal relationship which was based on which the tax claim was established prior to the above donation, and there was a high probability that the tax claim should be established in the near future because there was a high probability that the tax claim should be established in the near future. Thus, the pertinent tax claim can be the preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

(1) According to the above facts, the defendant was in a personal relationship with the former ○○○, the wife of the former ○○○, and immediately after the plaintiff notified the former ○○○○ of the pre-announcement of taxation, which resulted in a significant decrease in joint security, which is the plaintiff’s responsible property, by donating the instant real estate, which is the only property of the former ○○○○○○, to the defendant, his wife. In light of the above facts, the donation of this case by the former ○○○ constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the creditor, and the defendant’s intent

(2) Division of property

In the process of acquiring the instant real estate between ○○ and ○○ and the Defendant, the Defendant had a liability for construction expenses, etc. during the process of acquiring the instant real estate, and the loan secured by the instant real estate came to fall into a situation in which it is no longer possible to maintain married life due to the use of the loan as educational expenses, etc. for their children. At the time of divorce, the Defendant left the Defendant’s debt at the time of divorce, and ○○ received a donation under the condition that the former ○○ renounced the division of property on the instant real estate, and thus, the Defendant was lawful owner. However, according to the above facts acknowledged, the former ○ did not notify the Plaintiff of the prior notice of taxation as of August 16, 2006, and donated the instant real estate to the Defendant as of September 5, 2006, which was 14 days after the said 14th day thereafter, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the agreement between the former ○○ and the Defendant appears to have been the most in place of the said gift as part of property division.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the act of a preceding ○○’s donation of the instant real estate to the Defendant ought to be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration with respect to the instant real estate to the preceding ○○○.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.

List of Real Estate

1. ○○○○○○-dong ○○-dong ○○○-○○ 139 square meters;

2. A detached house with the second floor of the above ground year and of the flat boom roof (5 households).

71.00 square meters per floor

2nd floor 74.48 square meters

71.00 square meters of geological strata

10.23 square meters of a rooftop tower 10.23 square meters