the act of donation of his property under excess of his obligation constitutes a fraudulent act.

Where a debtor donated his/her own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, the donation contract of this case in which the non-party A, who was in excess of his/her obligation, donated his/her own property to the defendant who is his/her father, is presumed to be a fraudulent act.

1. On December 12, 2006, the contract of donation between the defendant and Kim○○ shall be revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on December 18, 2006 by ○○ District Court ○○○○○ Branch ○○○ on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to Kim○○○ in the separate sheet.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. During the period from April 2006 to December 2, 2006, the Plaintiff notified ○○ Construction (hereinafter “○○ Construction”) of KRW 14,949,870, corporate tax of KRW 28,135,380, earned income tax of KRW 24,983,860, value-added tax of KRW 13,591,810, corporate tax of KRW 2,959,79,790, earned income tax of KRW 83,350, and KRW 2,540,270, value-added tax of KRW 5,542,570, and KRW 92,786,90,00 by the deadline for payment. However, ○○ Construction did not pay the said tax by the deadline for payment.

B. On December 4, 2006, the Plaintiff, an oligopolistic shareholder with 70% shares of ○○ Construction (10,000 won per share, number of 28,000 won per share), was designated as a secondary taxpayer under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and notified that 33,597,800 won (hereinafter “instant tax claim”) totaling 47,96,870 won and additional dues not paid by ○○ Construction should be paid up to that time. However, ○○ did not pay this up to that date.

C. On December 12, 2006, Kim ○ concluded a donation contract (hereinafter "the donation contract of this case") with the defendant, who is his father on December 12, 2006, with respect to each real estate share in the separate sheet (hereinafter "each real estate share in this case"), which is all the real estate owned by him at that time, and completed the registration of transfer of each of the above shares with ○○ District Court ○○○○○○○○○○ Branch ○○○○○○○○○.

D. Kim○-○ was in excess of the obligation at the time of the instant donation contract, and ○○ Construction closed around December 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 10 (including each number), purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim of this case arising prior to the gift contract of this case becomes the obligee’s obligee’s right of revocation.

(b) Details of the fraudulent act;

In cases where a debtor donated his/her own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da28686, May 31, 2007). The instant donation contract, which is the only father of each of the instant real property by Kim ○, in excess of his/her obligation, donated each of the instant real property shares to the defendant, who is the only father, is presumed to be fraudulent, and the defendant's bad faith

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the gift contract of this case between the defendant and Kim ○ shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant shall be obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of each registration of this case to Kim ○○○ by restitution.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.