Seoul Central District Court-2015-Gohap-52985 (2016.05)

Whether a gift contract entered into between the debtor and the defendants constitutes a fraudulent act

Although thisA had been absent from the status of excess, the act of donation to the Defendants of the instant real estate, the only real estate owned by it, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to general creditors, including the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances. There is no other evidence to prove the Defendants’ good faith, and the Defendants are liable to compensate for the value.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration of Fraudulent Act

2016Na2053495 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

○○ et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Gahap52985 Decided July 5, 2016

December 14, 2017

January 9, 2018

1.The judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

A. The Defendants and thisA cancel the gift agreement concluded on August 4, 2010 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet within the extent of KRW 1,469,480,000.

B. The plaintiff shall pay to the plaintiff 653,102,220 won each, the 163,275,560 won each, and the 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this decision became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

2. All costs of the lawsuit are borne by the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

The decision is as follows (the plaintiff extended the purport of the claim as above in this court).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendants and thisA shall cancel the gift agreement concluded on August 4, 2010 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet within the limit of KRW 1,007,759,929.

Defendant B, CC, 111,973,325 won, and 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment with respect to each of the above amounts.

The sum calculated shall be paid.

1. Basic facts

A. Conclusion of the gift contract of this case

1) On December 21, 2009, thisA, the representative director of ○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○ Company”) of ○○○ Company, transferred his/her shares to Lee Ho-ho, a director of ○○ Company, and then retired from the office of representative director of ○○ Company on January 6, 2010.

2) On August 4, 2010, thisA entered into a gift agreement with Defendant CC, Defendant BB, a fraud, and Defendant DoD, with the content that each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) is donated in shares such as the shares indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant gift agreement”).

B. Disposition imposing global income tax and value-added tax on EA

1) 원고 산하 중부지방국세청 소속 담당 공무원은 ●●주식회사, ◆◆주식회사, ■■주식회사 (이하 '●●주식회사', '◆◆주식회사', '■■주식회사'라 한다)가 자료상으로 고발됨에 따라 2013. 8.경 그 거래처인 ○○회사에 대한 세무조사를 실시하였다.

2) ○○세무서장은 세무조사 결과 2008년부터 2010년까지 ○○회사가 ●●주식회사, ◆◆주식회사, ■■주식회사로부터 재화 또는 용역의 공급 없이 허위세금계산서를 수취한 사실이 확인되었다면서, 아래 표 기재와 같이 2008년, 2009년 당시 ○○회사 대표이사였던 이AA에게 인정상여로 인한 종합소득세를 부과, 고지하였고, ○○회사에게 가공 매입세액에 대한 매입세액 불공제 경정고지를 한 후 과점주주인 이AA을 제2차 납세의무자로 지정하여 아래와 같이 부가가치세를 부과, 고지하였다(이하 위 각 조세부과 처분을 '이 사건 조세부과처분'이라 하고, 그 채권을 '이 사건 조세채권'이라 한다).

C. Progress of related litigation

1)*** the Fund sought reimbursement against ○○○○ Court 000 Gahap000, and against the Defendants, the Defendants filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant gift contract and cancellation of the ownership transfer registration that was completed on the instant real estate on the ground of fraudulent act. On February 17, 2012, the said court rendered a favorable judgment of *** the Fund, and the Defendants appealed and the Seoul High Court appealed as 00000.

2) ** Upon receipt of payment of KRW 632,00,000 with the Defendants, the Fund agreed not to take legal measures against the Defendants and the instant real estate, and accordingly, EA and the Defendants paid KRW 632,00,000 to the Fund* * 632,00,000,000. The Fund withdrawn the said lawsuit against the Defendants on April 23, 2012. The Fund withdrawn the appeal on April 30, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6, 12, 18, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, as a creditor holding the instant taxation claim against thisA, donated the instant real estate, which is the only real estate owned by thisA while in excess of its obligation, to the Defendants, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the obligee. Therefore, the instant gift contract ought to be revoked as a fraudulent act. The Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration for the instant real estate under the name of the Defendants, as restitution to the Plaintiff following the revocation of fraudulent act. ** the Fund collected KRW 632,00,000 from the Defendants through the fraudulent act revocation lawsuit, * KRW 2,101,480,000 from the value return for the instant real estate x* KRW 632,00,000,000 from the value return for the revocation of the fraudulent act x KRW 632,00,000,000 from the amount already collected by the Fund x KRW 1,469,480,000,000 from the amount calculated by deducting KRW 2,101,63640,60,4060,4060,0.36

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. Main Safety Defenses by the Defendants

원고 산하 중부지방국세청이 2012. 2.경 ○○회사의 거래처인 ●●주식회사, ◆◆주식회사, ■■주식회사에 대해 세무조사를 한 후 거래처 관련자들을 조세범처벌법위반 혐의로 고발하였고, 2013. 10. 13.에는 이AA에 대한 체납자 재산전산자료가 구축되었으며, 2014. 3. 31. 이AA의 재산가액이 230,500,000원이고 가산세를 제외한 체납액이 248,731,370원임이 체납자 재산 전산자료에 의해 확인되므로, 2012. 2.경, 2013. 10. 13.경 또는 늦어도 2014. 3. 31.경에는 원고가 이AA의 채무초과상태, 사해행위 및 사해의사를 알게 되었다고 할 것이다. 따라서 그때로부터 제척기간 1년이 지난 2015. 5. 2.에서야 제기된 이 사건 소는 부적법하다.

B. Determination

In the exercise of the right of revocation, the "date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the obligor becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while being aware that it would prejudice the obligee, and this requires that the obligor merely aware of the fact that the obligor conducted a disposal of the property is insufficient to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act, and that the obligor was aware of the intent to deceive the obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da3262, Sept. 29, 2000). Meanwhile, the burden of proof as to the lapse of the limitation period lies in the party to the creditor revocation lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102, Mar. 26, 2009).

위 법리를 기초로 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 갑 제7 내지 10호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 2012. 2.경 ○○회사의 거래처인 ●●주식회사, ◆◆주식회사, ■■주식회사에 대한 세무조사가, 2013. 8.경 ○○회사에 대한 세무조사가 각 실시된 사실, 이AA이 2013. 10. 1.경부터 종합소득세를 체납한 사실, 2013. 10. 13.경 이AA에 대한 체납자 재산 전산자료가 구축된 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 위 인정사실만으로는 이 사건 소 제기일로부터 1년 이전인 2012. 2.경, 2013. 10. 13.경 또는 2014. 3. 31.경 원고가 이 사건 증여계약이 이AA의 채무초과상태에서 이루어진 사해행위에 해당하고 이AA에게 사해의사가 있었다는 사실을 알고 있었음을 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

Rather, the evidence Nos. 7, 13, and 14 revealed as a whole the purport of the entire pleadings. In other words, if the Plaintiff knew that the gift contract of this case was a fraudulent act, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff was taking such measures as taking procedures, such as filing an application for prohibition of disposal and provisional disposition to preserve the right to claim cancellation of ownership transfer registration following the revocation of fraudulent act, and the computerized data on the delinquent taxpayer’s property that can know the transfer of ownership of the real estate of this case were printed out on March 19, 2015, and accordingly, the public official of ○○ Tax Office filed a request for tracking investigation, such as fraudulent act on March 20, 2015, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff had been aware of the intention of harm of thisA before March 19, 2015. Therefore, the Defendants’ safety defense is without merit.

4. Judgment on the merits

(a) Occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;

(i)the existence of preserved claims;

A) The parties’ assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The taxation claim of this case is prior to the conclusion of the gift contract of this case, and the ○○ Company shall include the virtual park price.

In 208 and 2009, the basic legal relations of the above taxation claim have already occurred, and in fact, the plaintiff discovered that the provisional park was appropriated in the taxable year of 2008 and 2009 through the investigation of the ○○○ Company that served as the representative director, and the above provisional park was disposed of as the recognition of the ○○ Company, the representative director of the ○ Company, and this oligopolistic shareholder was designated as the representative director of the ○ Company, and thus the tax imposition disposition of this case was taken place in the near future. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim of this case against this ○ constitutes the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation.

(2) The defendants' assertion

First, the instant tax imposition disposition was made based on the Plaintiff’s unilateral and coercive coercion against his own free will, and the defect was serious and obvious, and thus, it is null and void.

Next, there was no tax investigation on the ○○ Company at the time of the conclusion of the instant gift contract, and there was no foreseeable tax investigation on the ○ Company, and this was neither designated nor recognized as a secondary taxpayer. At that time, there was no legal relationship that forms the basis of the establishment of the value-added tax, global income tax, and additional tax, and there is no high probability that the instant tax claim is established. The instant tax claim cannot be deemed to have been established only after the lapse of 3 years to 1 months, and 4 years and 6 months from the date of the conclusion of the instant gift contract, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant tax claim was actually located in the near future from the date of the instant gift contract. Thus, the instant tax claim cannot be deemed to have been a preserved claim for the obligee’s right

B) Determination

(1) Whether the instant tax imposition disposition is invalid

As to whether the instant tax imposition disposition was made on the basis of a pre-written statement, confirmation document, etc. written against the person’s free will, and the defect was material and apparent and null and void, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, considering the overall purport of the arguments in the items in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Articles 37-1 and 37-2, this case’s tax imposition disposition was dismissed by the above court of Seoul High Court on January 11, 2017, and this case’s appeal was filed on the ground of the above Seoul High Court Decision 2017Nu34829, but the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 5, 2017, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

(2) Whether the pertinent taxation claim can be the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation

(A) As to the instant global income tax claim

As prescribed by Article 21(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the liability to pay global income tax on a person to whom the income accrued from the disposal of recognized contributions belongs shall be established when the taxable period to which the pertinent income accrued expires as prescribed by Article 21(1)1 of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du4604, Jul. 13, 2006). However, tax claims have not yet been established at the time of fraudulent act, but before that, if a tax obligor included a park in a company where the tax obligor substantially represents, and the tax authority imposed global income tax by disposing of the said virtual park as a result of the disposal of the said virtual park to the tax obligor, the above tax claims have already arisen at the time of calculating the provisional park, and have a high probability of establishing the near future claims, and thus, they may become the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001).

위에서 본 바와 같이 ○○세무서장은 세무조사 결과 ○○회사가 2008년부터 2009년까지 ●●주식회사, ◆◆주식회사, ■■주식회사로부터 재화 또는 용역의 공급 없이 허위세금계산서를 수취하였음을 확인한 후, ○○회사의 2008년도 내지 2009년도 법인세 과세표준 및 세액을 경정하면서 각 해당 금액을 손금불산입하고, 위 금액을 당시 대표이사였던 이AA의 상여로 소득처분한 다음 위 인정상여 금액을 이AA에 대한 2008년 및 2009년 종합소득세의 과세표준에 포함시켜 증액경정결정을 내리고 이AA에게 2008년 및 2009년 종합소득세를 추가로 납부하도록 고지하였는바, 이로 인한 원고의 이AA에 대한 종합소득세 조세채권은 이AA의 2008년 내지 2009년 귀속분 소득에 관한 것으로서 당해 과세기간이 종료하는 2008. 12. 31. 및 2009. 12. 31. 무렵에 성립하였다고 봄이 타당하다. 따라서 이 사건 종합소득세 조세채권은 2010. 8. 4. 체결된 이 사건 증여계약의 취소를 구하는 이 사건 채권자취소소송에 있어서 피보전권리가 된다(이 사건 종합소득세 조세채권에 포함되어 있는 가산세 채권 역시 그 발생의 기초가 되는 법률관계가 성립되어 있었고, 가까운 장래에 위 가산세에 관한 결정과 고지가 이루어질 높은 개연성이 있었으므로 이 사건 종합소득세 본세 채권과 함께 채권자취소권의 피보전채권이 될 수 있다고 할 것이다).

(B) As to the instant value-added tax claim

The secondary liability for tax payment is established separately from the primary liability for tax payment, and is established abstractly by the occurrence of legal requirements, such as a shortage of collection amount, etc. for the primary person liable for tax payment, and is determined specifically by notifying the secondary person liable for tax payment by the notice of payment under Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu24872, Dec. 26, 190).

Meanwhile, although the taxation claims against the secondary taxpayer, the representative director and the oligopolistic shareholder, have not yet arisen at the time of the fraudulent act, the taxation claims had already been established prior to the fraudulent act, and the secondary taxpayer was notified prior to such determination. At the time of the fraudulent act, the basic legal relations of the taxation claims have already arisen prior to the fraudulent act, such as the fact that the secondary taxpayer was unable to pay the above tax obligations in light of the company's business and financial status, and it could sufficiently anticipate the possibility of imposing the tax obligations on the oligopolistic shareholder, and there was a high probability about the establishment of the taxation claims based on the above legal relations in the near future. If the taxation claims have been established as a result of realizing the possibility in the near future, such taxation claims may be subject to the obligee's right of revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da35465, Sept. 28, 2006).

(4) No material exists to deem that legal requirements have occurred, such as shortage of collection amount to ○○○○ Company, the main taxpayer at the time of signing the instant donation contract, and that ○○○○○ Company’s notice of additional tax payment to ○○○ Company following the verification of the fact of receiving the false tax invoices was given, and the head of the tax office, who did not pay the above taxes, sent this notice to ○○ Company on December 1, 2013. As seen above, the Plaintiff’s second taxpayer’s notice of designation and payment cannot be deemed to have become final and conclusive at the time of entering into the instant donation contract. Meanwhile, there was a high probability that the Plaintiff’s claim for value-added tax against ○○ Company was established at the time of the instant legal act that becomes the subject of revocation, and that there was a high probability that the claim would have been generated based on the existing legal relations in the near future, and that the claim for value-added tax claim and its additional tax claim were not established for 20 years prior to the conclusion of the instant gift contract.

2) Whether the debts are in excess

“Legal act detrimental to creditor who is the requirement of creditor’s right of revocation” refers to a juristic act that makes it impossible to fully satisfy creditor’s claims because of a decrease in debtor’s assets due to the debtor’s act of disposing of the debtor’s assets, or a lack of joint collateral already in the state of shortage. Such fraudulent act may be established not only where the debtor has already been in excess of his/her obligations before disposing of his/her assets, but also where he/she has been placed in excess of his/her obligations due to an act in question, such as summary, monetary donation, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da6808, Apr. 29, 2005; 201Da82360, Feb. 23, 2012; 201Da82360, Feb. 23, 201). Based on the above legal principles, the total amount of KRW 30,500,300,308,300,38140.

(iii)the intent to commit fraudulent act and to commit suicide;

Unless there are special circumstances, the act of donation to the Defendants of this case, the only real estate owned by thisA, even though thisA was absent from debt excess, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors including the Plaintiff.

In light of the various circumstances indicated in the argument in this case, such as the receipt of false tax invoices by the ○○ Company whose representative director was the ○○ Company prior to the conclusion of the instant gift contract, and the financial status of the ○○ Company at the time of the conclusion of the said gift contract, it is reasonable to deem that this case’s gift act was aware of the fact that there was a shortage of joint security of claims due to the act of donation in this case. Therefore, in such a case, the Defendants, the beneficiary, were presumed to have known that the instant gift contract was prejudicial to the Plaintiff, the creditor of

4) Determination as to the defendants' bona fide defense

A) The defendants' defenses

As to this, the Defendants did not have entirely anticipated that the instant tax claim would result in the occurrence of the instant tax claim, and notified the Plaintiff of the instant gift and paid gift tax faithfully. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants were bona fide beneficiaries who did not fully recognize the circumstances that the Plaintiff would harm the creditors of the Plaintiff, etc. due to the conclusion of the instant gift contract, such as paying old age funds in return for the instant gift.

B) Determination

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, a beneficiary or a subsequent purchaser is liable to prove the fact that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is in bad faith with respect to the fact that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is acting in bad faith, and in recognizing that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser was acting in good faith at the time of the fraudulent act or the subsequent purchase in cases where the debtor’s act of disposing of the property constitutes a fraudulent act, evidence, etc. that may be objectively and objectively satisfied should be determined. A readily concluding that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser was acting in good faith at the time of the fraudulent act or the subsequent purchase solely on the grounds that the debtor or the beneficiary’s unilateral statement or the third party’s statement is merely a mere conjection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da23

In light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire arguments as to the instant case, namely, the Defendants are in a position to fully know the status of the property of thisA as a father, son, or grandchild of thisA, and the Defendants paid gift tax to thisA in return for a gift, and the circumstances that the Defendants paid EA in return for a gift do not interfere with the Defendants’ malicious recognition as a beneficiary in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, etc., the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants, upon entering into the instant gift contract, knew the Plaintiff and other creditors of this case at the time of entering into the instant gift contract, knew that the Defendants would harm other creditors of this case, including the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to reverse the said presumption. Accordingly, the Defendants’ aforementioned defense on a different premise is groundless.

5) Sub-committee

The instant gift contract constitutes a fraudulent act and must be revoked, and the Defendants accordingly do not constitute a fraudulent act.

shall bear the duty of restitution.

(b) Scope of revocation of the fraudulent act and the method and scope of restitution;

1) Relevant legal principles

In principle, restitution following the revocation of a fraudulent act shall be based on the return of the relevant object. However, in cases where it is impossible or significantly difficult, compensation for value shall be based on exceptional circumstances. In calculating the amount of compensation, the value shall be objectively assessed at the time of closing argument in fact-finding proceedings, regardless of the fact-finding proceedings, regardless of the amount actually received by the beneficiary from the subsequent purchaser (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da104564, Apr. 29, 2010).

Each obligee who satisfies the requirements for obligee’s right of revocation is entitled to seek restitution after cancelling the obligor’s property disposal act as its own right. However, where one obligee claims revocation and restitution of the same fraudulent act, and the judgment became final and conclusive by winning a favorable judgment, and thereby completing restitution of the property or value, the obligee’s claim for revocation and restitution of the original status will no longer benefit in the protection of rights to the extent that it overlaps (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da65367, Mar. 24, 2005).

Meanwhile, when a creditor exercises his/her right of revocation, he/she cannot, in principle, exercise his/her right of revocation in excess of his/her claim amount. The creditor’s claim amount includes interest or delay damages incurred after the fraudulent act and the time of the closing of argument in fact-finding proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da66416, Sept. 4, 2

Therefore, barring special circumstances, a creditor can only cancel the fraudulent act and seek compensation for the value of the fraudulent act to the extent of the smaller amount between his/her preserved claim and his/her common collateral value.

2) Determination in this case

(A)return of value;

** The Fund has filed a lawsuit against the Defendants to cancel the instant gift contract and to recover the original state in the first instance trial, and received KRW 632,00,000 through agreement with the Defendants in the appellate trial and withdrawn the said lawsuit. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the original state as a result of the cancellation of the instant gift contract falls under a case where it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the original state as a result of the cancellation of the instant gift contract, and thus, it should be restored by the method of compensation for value.

B) Joint collateral value

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the commission of appraisal by the appraiser ○○, the market price of the instant real estate is KRW 2,101,480,000 in total (i.e., the market price of the instant real estate 2,070,000 + the market price of the instant real estate 31,480,000 in the instant case). ** the Fund received 632,00,000,000 from the Defendants in the appellate court after filing a lawsuit against the Defendants for the cancellation of the instant gift contract and the claim for restitution against the Defendants, and then withdrawn the said lawsuit.

Therefore, the joint collateral value of the instant real estate is KRW 1,469,480,00, which is the other creditor, from the value of the instant real estate 2,101,480,000 to the value of the instant real estate ** the balance obtained by deducting KRW 632,00,000,000, which has been recovered from the creditor of the Fund through the revocation of the creditor and the lawsuit for restitution to original state (the Defendant’s rescission of the instant donation contract was completed before the cancellation of the registration of creation of the instant real estate). Since the Defendant asserts that a fraudulent act was established only within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting KRW 747,00,00 from the maximum debt value of the instant real estate 1, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant donation contract was concluded before the cancellation of the registration of establishment of the instant real estate 4,000,000,000, which is the aggregate of the maximum debt amount of the instant real estate 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants’s conclusion.

C. Amount of preserved bonds

The creditor's claim amount includes interest or delay damages incurred after the fraudulent act and until the closing of argument in the trial court. Meanwhile, the additional dues under the National Tax Collection Act are added pursuant to Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act in cases where national taxes have not been paid by the time limit for payment, and thus, insofar as the tax claim in this case is recognized as preserved claim by the creditor's right of revocation, the amount of the claim in this case shall include the additional dues incurred after the fraudulent act and until the closing of argument in the trial court (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007). In full view of the purport of the whole arguments as stated in the evidence No. 38-1 through 5 of the evidence No. 38-5, the tax claim amount in this case, which reflects the additional dues on November 2017 near the date of the closing of argument in this case, can be acknowledged as constituting a total of 2,01,

D) Sub-committee

According to the above facts, the value of the common security, which is the object of the fraudulent act, is less than the amount of the plaintiff's preserved claim. Therefore, the revocation of the fraudulent act in this case and compensation for the value thereof shall be made within the limit of KRW 1,469,480,00, which is the smaller amount between the preserved claim amount and the common security value of the real estate in this

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the agreement between the Defendants and thisA regarding each of the instant real estate has been revoked within the limit of KRW 1,469,480,000, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day following the date this ruling became final and conclusive to the day of full payment with respect to each of the instant real estate x 1,469,480,00 won (i.e., 1,469,480,000 won x 4/9) and each of the above amounts (i.e., 163,275,560 won (i., 469,480,000 x 1/9) and 1/9).

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion, so the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as the judgment of the court of first instance, including the extended claim in the trial.