1. The contract of donation concluded on January 15, 2015 between the Defendant and B shall be revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. B, on April 16, 2014, transferred 1/4 shares of each of the 1/4 shares of 1/4 shares in the non-indicted C and 9 parcels, but did not report and pay the relevant transfer income tax.

B. Around January 9, 2015, the director of the tax office of the Plaintiff-affiliated tax office notified B of the payment of KRW 562,921,280 of the transfer income tax reverted to year 2014 on December 2, 2014, and notified B of the payment on January 12, 2015.

C. B, on January 15, 2015, donated each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 26, 2015 with the Sungwon District Court No. 15,489.

B was in excess of debt at the time of the donation.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 6, the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, on January 15, 2015, B, who was in excess of debt, donated the instant real estate to the Defendant on January 15, 2015, shall be deemed as a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, who is a tax claim holder, and as the Defendant, who is the beneficiary, is presumed to have been malicious, barring any special circumstance, the above donation contract between B and the Defendant shall be revoked, and the Defendant shall be obligated to implement the procedure for registration cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under the above donation

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Defendant’s assertion 1B is merely a fact that the Plaintiff did not actually sell each share of 9 parcels out of the Hosung City, which is subject to capital gains tax, but merely made the appearance of transfer act in collusion with E and F, which is the other party to the transaction, and does not actually engage in the act of transfer. Since the above real estate share was trusted in trust with D, the capital gains tax on the transfer of the above real estate share should be imposed on D, which is the title truster, and thus, the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax imposed on B by the director of the tax office is unlawful.

Therefore, the plaintiff B.