to the defendant the only property owned by the defaulted taxpayer is a fraudulent act.

The Defendants asserted that the act does not constitute a fraudulent act because they had known the existence of a tax claim against the delinquent taxpayer due to a legitimate transaction, but it is deemed that the gift of real estate, which is the only property of the debtor, or the offer as a physical security, constitutes a fraudulent act against other creditors.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the contract of donation concluded on January 15, 2007 between the defendant Gangwon-do and the non-party Na○○○, and the defendants, respectively, shall be revoked on March 10, 2007.

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

A. Defendant Gangnam-do, who completed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration on January 29, 2007 with the ○○ District Court ○○○○○ registry office ○○○○, which was completed on January 29, 2007.

B. Defendant Kim ○ shall implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed by the head of 7734 on May 8, 2007 with ○○ District Court ○○○○ registry office of ○○○○○○○.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including additional numbers), the non-party Na○○ concluded a collective security contract with defendant Kim Jong-soo who is a relative relation with each of the real estate of this case and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on January 29, 2007, on the basis of the fact that the non-party Na○○ was liable to pay KRW 77,631,910 in aggregate of value-added tax and traffic tax from November 1, 2003 to December 2, 2006, and the Na○○○ donated each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each of the real estate of this case") on January 15, 2007, and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on March 10, 207.

According to the above facts of recognition, ○○○○ who is liable to pay tax to the Plaintiff, donated each of the instant real estate to Defendant Gangwon-do, the sole property of which is its wife, and Defendant Gangwon-do established a collateral on each of the instant real estate to Defendant Kim○○, barring any special circumstance, constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, who is the obligee, barring any special circumstance.

Therefore, the above donation contract and mortgage contract should be revoked, and each of the above transfer registration and mortgage establishment registration should be cancelled due to the restoration to the original state.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that it does not constitute a fraudulent act because they had different knowledge about the establishment of the tax claim against ○○, and they did not constitute a fraudulent act. However, since the obligor’s donation of real estate, which is the only property, or provision of real estate as security, constitutes a fraudulent act against other creditors, the above argument is difficult to accept

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.