Whether it constitutes a fraudulent act with a specific creditor;

The transfer of real estate by the Nonparty to the Defendant for compulsory execution, such as seizure of real estate due to the disposition of national tax in arrears, is deemed to have known that it would prejudice the Plaintiff at the time of transfer. The Defendant should be deemed to have known that the transfer of real estate by Nonparty’s birth was fraudulent act and the Nonparty’s intention of deception.

1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. Revocation of the sales contract concluded on December 7, 2006 between the defendant and Kim ○○, which was concluded on December 7, 2006

B. The defendant on December 7, 2006, 2006, ○○ District Court ○○○ Registry on December 7, 2006 to Kim○○.

shall comply with the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership completed by the Corporation.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) Facts of recognition;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, described in Gap 1 through 13 (including the serial number), witness

○○ Kim's testimony, overall purport of pleading

B. Thus, unless there are special circumstances, the sales contract entered in the order (hereinafter "the contract of this case") is revoked as fraudulent act and the defendant is obligated to perform the contract as stated in the order to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that he was a bona fide beneficiary, since he entered into the sales contract of this case on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet with Kim ○ and the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each of the real estate in this case"). The defendant, on October 2, 2006, lent 45 million won to Kim ○○ on the part of October 2, 2006, was a substitute beneficiary, and he did not know at all about the property status of Kim ○-○.

B. Determination

(1) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary has the burden of proof against himself/herself, and in recognizing that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, it should be based on objective and acceptable evidence charges, etc., and it should not be readily concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, solely on the unilateral statement of the debtor or an excessive statement by a third party (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da61280, Jul. 4, 2006).

(2) In light of the following circumstances, i.e.,: (a) Kim○○ was the Defendant-friendly real estate; (b) Kim○ was subject to a tax investigation on the ground that the sales was omitted in the return of value-added tax for the first period of 2006 from the ○○ Tax Office at the time of each of the instant sales contract; and (c) the additional amount was 33,343,221 won (including additional tax 46,08,979 won) out of the sales in the first year of 2006, on the ground that the Plaintiff omitted sales in the return of the instant sales in the return of the instant case; and (d) the Defendant’s assertion that each of the instant real estate was the only real estate of Kim○○○○○○○○; and (e) the Defendant’s testimony was insufficient to recognize otherwise at the time of each of the instant sales contract.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's request is accepted.

Table 3

1. ○◯ ◯◯군 ◯◯면 ◯◯리 ◯◯ 답 959㎡

2. 같은 리 1◯◯ 답 96㎡. 끝.

Cheongwon of the Gu

1. The relationship between the non-party Kim ○ and the defendant

Defendant Kim Jong-soo’s punishment is the non-party in arrears of national tax and Kim ○○ (hereinafter referred to as “non-party in arrears”). Accordingly, the Defendant and the non-party in a prison relationship (referring to the evidence No. 1-2 and a certified copy of evidence No. 1).

2. Formation of a taxation claim which is a preserved claim;

가.소외인은 2005. 11. 25.부터 2006. 10. 16.까지 ◯◯시 ○구 ○○동 ○○번지에서 '○○'라는 상호로 사행성 게임장을 운영한 자입니다.(갑 제2호 증 '사업자 기본사항 조회' 참조)

B. In relation to the operation of the above business, the Nonparty had paid the value-added tax under the method of omitting sales at the time of return of the value-added tax in January 2006. In this regard, the head of ○○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control of the Plaintiff notified 33,343,220 won as the due date on February 28, 2007, but it did not pay up to 351,343,730 won including the additional dues. (See subparagraph 3 of the A)

3. Fraudulent act;

(a) In the condition that an entrepreneur has underpaid value-added tax by filing a return of tax in good faith and by omitting sales at the time of filing the return of value-added tax on January 2006, despite the Nonparty’s voluntary payment of the relevant national tax;

B. He reported that the gambling game site becomes a social issue, and that a large tax investigation on the gambling game site is commenced in various media (see the evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 4).

C. On November 30, 2006, the director of the tax office of the plaintiff Busan District Tax office selected the above workplace as a subject of on-site verification investigation, and conducted a tax investigation on the return of value-added tax by omitting sales from the date of investigation from December 4, 2006 to January 5, 2007. (See the evidence No. 5 of this case's investigation history)

D. On December 7, 2006, the Nonparty: (a) on December 7, 2006, registered the ownership transfer registration under the receipt of ○○ District Court ○○○○ registry ○○ on the ground of the sales contract on December 7, 2006, to Defendant Kim○, the birth of the Nonparty (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) on the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by him with the knowledge that the amount of national tax would be notified; (b) thereby, the Nonparty became insolvent; and (c) on this basis, the Plaintiff could not obtain the satisfaction of the tax claim; (d) on this basis, the Plaintiff could not obtain the satisfaction of the tax claim (see, e.g., the “written copy of

E. The Nonparty: (a) registered transfer of ownership of the instant real estate under a press report that conducts a large tax investigation on a speculative game business entity; and (b) anticipated that the commencement of the tax investigation and the high amount of national taxes will be notified in accordance with a report on omission of sales; (c) the acquisitor is the Nonparty’s partner; (d) after the commencement of the tax investigation; and (e) the transfer of ownership of the instant real estate after the commencement of the tax investigation; and (e) the notified value-added tax has been fully paid until now; and (e) the Nonparty’s transfer of ownership on the instant real estate due to sales to the Defendant does not pay the higher amount of national taxes to be notified to him; and (e) is the most act or fraudulent act to be exempted from compulsory collection, such as seizure of the instant real estate

4. Intention and bad faith of the defendant;

The Nonparty had known the Plaintiff at the time of transfer of the instant real estate, which is the only property owned by himself/herself, due to sale and purchase, in order to avoid the disposition of national tax in arrears due to the notice of national tax payment, when the liability for tax payment was already established. The Defendant should be deemed to have known the Nonparty’s birth that the transfer was fraudulent act and the Nonparty’s intent of deception.

5. Whether the pertinent real estate is a well-grounded property

The director of the tax office affiliated with the plaintiff investigate the property of the non-party for the purpose of the disposition on default. The real estate of this case is the only property for the appropriation of the non-party's national tax. (See evidence 7 of this case's real estate acquisition/transfer status)

6. The date on which he becomes aware of a fraudulent act;

The plaintiff was issued on May 9, 2007 and became aware of the fraudulent act of this case in order to execute the disposition on default against the non-party that the real estate of this case was registered in the name of the defendant.

7. Conclusion

The act of the Nonparty’s act of completing the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on the instant real estate on the grounds of sale and purchase constitutes a fraudulent act under Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act by knowing that the act was done with the knowledge that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, a creditor, by evading the Nonparty’s tax liability.

In accordance with Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act, the plaintiff has reached a claim as stated in the purport of the claim.