Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Although the defendant alleged that he was unaware of the circumstances that he would harm the plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to reverse the presumption of bad faith against the defendant. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Article 30 (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act)

Article 9 (Notice of Tax Payment)

1. The sales contract concluded on April 20, 2005 with respect to 1,193 square meters prior to 1768, ○○-dong, ○○-si, ○○○○○○-si, and the non-party ○○○.

2. The defendant's registration of ○○ District Court's ○○○ with respect to the above real estate and 205.

4. The procedures for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 25862 shall be implemented.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 20, 2005, the head of ○○ Tax Office, under the Plaintiff’s control, notified Nonparty 1 of the deadline for payment of capital gains tax of KRW 18,042,30 on March 31, 2005.

B. On April 25, 2005, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 2005 on the part of the Defendant, who was his wife of Dong Jong-si, ○○○○○ on the 20th day of the same month with excessive debts.

Each description of evidence Nos. 1 through 6 of the grounds for recognition, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the tax claim of the plaintiff's Ma○○ may be a preserved claim in order to exercise the creditor's right of revocation. As seen earlier, since the conclusion of the sales contract on the land of this case where Ma○○ was the sole property at the time of debt excess constitutes a case where the creditors' joint security has been reduced, the above sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that ○○, the debtor, is detrimental to the plaintiff, the creditor, and the defendant, the beneficiary, is presumed to have known such circumstances.

B. As to this, the defendant alleged that he was unable to use the money from the defendant and YO, first of the plaintiff's disposition on default, and that YO transferred the ownership of the land of this case to the defendant, and the defendant was unaware of the circumstance that YO would damage the plaintiff at the time. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to reverse the presumption of bad faith against the defendant. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the sales contract of this case between the defendant and YO on April 20, 2005 should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on April 25, 2005 with respect to the land of this case, to YOOO, so the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition.