1. The sales contract concluded on March 8, 2013 between the Defendant and B on the real estate listed in the separate sheet is KRW 97 million.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 31, 2013, the Plaintiff has global income tax on B (i.e., global income tax; (ii) global income tax on August 31, 2013; (iii) global income tax on KRW 288,864,360; and (iv) global income tax on December 31, 2012 (hereinafter “instant bonds”).

B. B, on March 8, 2013, entered into a contract with the Defendant, who is the child, to sell real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) for KRW 220 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate on May 6, 2013.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 8, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. We examine the defendant's assertion that the defendant's lawsuit of this case was filed in excess of the period of filing the lawsuit of this case.

A lawsuit for revocation by a creditor shall be brought within one year from the date the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation.

(Article 406(2) of the Civil Act provides that “In order to find it aware of the cause for revocation, the mere fact that there was a juristic act by an obligor is insufficient to recognize the existence of such juristic act, and that such juristic act is an act detrimental to the obligee, i.e., an act that causes a shortage in the joint security of the claim or a lack of joint security already in short, making it impossible to fully satisfy the claim due to the lack of one story.”

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da53704 Decided February 25, 2000, etc.). The Plaintiff rendered a decision of withholding the disposition of withholding the liquidation on June 30, 2014 after conducting a deliberation of withholding the disposition of withholding the liquidation on the amount of delinquent taxes attributed to B in 2012. According to the Plaintiff’s provision of withholding the collection of national taxes, the Plaintiff’s duty to investigate the property status of the delinquent taxpayer, whether the delinquent taxpayer’s act of disposing of property was fraudulent, etc.