1. The sales contract as of May 10, 2018 between B and the Defendant on real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. B is a representative director of C and a 100%-invested share owner on January 31, 2018, and is designated as the secondary taxpayer on January 2, 2018. On January 13, 2018, the Gwangju District Director of the Gwangju District Tax Office attached KRW 19,100,820 in total of the value-added tax on January 13, 2017, and KRW 30,178,310 in total of the value-added tax on February 20, 2017 to C as the due date for payment on February 20, 2018, but did not pay the amount of national tax in arrears as of November 30, 2018.

B. On the other hand, on May 10, 2018, B sold to the Defendant, who is the private village branch, real estate listed in the separate sheet (director’s “instant land”) as the only property amounting to KRW 43,500,000, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on May 10, 2018 as the receipt No. 82044.

C. On December 15, 2014, the instant land was established with the maximum debt amount of 18,200,000 won, B, and D, the debtor, and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant mortgage”). On May 10, 2018, the Defendant revoked the registration of the creation of a neighboring mortgage as of May 10, 2018, by repaying KRW 14,046,986, the secured debt amount of the said right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant mortgage”).

Meanwhile, the officially announced value of the instant real estate was KRW 43,070,000, around 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 9 evidence, each entry of Eul 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claims for preservation and fraudulent acts;

A. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff had a national tax claim against B, which becomes the preserved claim of obligee’s right of revocation, and B was in excess of the obligation at the time of the instant sales contract.

B. Unless there are special circumstances, the act of entering into the instant sales contract with the Defendant and completing the registration of ownership transfer with the Defendant under excess of the debt constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors of the Plaintiff et al., and B was aware of such circumstances at the time.

3. The fact that the beneficiary was unaware of the fraudulent act in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the defendant's good faith is that the beneficiary was unaware of the fraudulent act.