Where it is impossible or substantially impracticable to return originals in a fraudulent act;

Cases where it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the original object means cases where the return of the original object is not simply absolute or physically impossible, but can not expect the realization of its implementation in light of the empirical rules or transactional norms in the social life.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The gift agreement concluded on September 28, 2007 with respect to one half of the real estate stated in the separate sheet between the Defendant and Kim △△△△ ( Address: ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○505, ○505), shall be revoked within the scope of 33,603,200 won.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 33,603,200 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From 2001 to 451 of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government △△△△△△△, Kim △△△ operated a web content development business with the trade name “○○○○○”, and due to financial difficulties, the Plaintiff was unable to pay the value added tax and the comprehensive income tax from January 31, 2004.

B. Kim △△△ and its wife shared 1/2 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). However, on September 12, 2007, the National Bank of Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “National Bank”) completed the registration of establishment of the first-class class class mortgage to secure loan claims of 30,000,000, and 300 won.

C. On September 28, 2007, Kim △△△ donated one half of the real estate of this case, which is its sole property, to the Defendant on September 28, 2007, while in excess of its obligation, such as delinquency in payment of the above taxes, and on the same day, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant was completed with respect to one half of the real estate in the

(d)the National Bank completed the registration of establishment of a second-class mortgage on October 5, 2007 with a view to securing a loan credit of KRW 15,00,000,000, in connection with the real property in this case;

E. Meanwhile, at the time of the closing of the argument in this case, the sum of the tax amount paid to the Plaintiff at △△△△ was KRW 33,603, and KRW 200, and the real estate market price of this case was KRW 105,00,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 8 and 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Formation of fraudulent act;

According to the above facts, the act of disposing of one half of the real estate of this case, which is its sole property in excess of Kim △△△△△ obligation, to the Defendant, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, a creditor, (hereinafter “the fraudulent act of this case”).

(b) Scope and methods of revocation of fraudulent act.

First of all, if the method of restitution is examined, and the creditor's fraudulent act is revoked and the claim for restitution is accepted, the beneficiary is obligated to return the object of the fraudulent act to the debtor as restitution. If it is impossible or considerably difficult to return originals, the beneficiary is obligated to compensate for the equivalent amount of the value of the object of the fraudulent act. Here, "the originals are impossible or considerably difficult to return" refers to cases where the originals return are not simply absolute or physically impossible, but it is impossible to expect the realization of the performance in light of the social experience rules or the transaction concept. Thus, in case where a third party acquires the right of the originals after the fraudulent act, the creditor can seek compensation for the value on the ground that it is impossible or considerably difficult for the beneficiary to return the originals due to the lack of restriction such as mortgage. According to the above acknowledged facts, the creditor can claim for restitution against the beneficiary on the ground that it is considerably difficult to recover the originals of the real estate after the fraudulent act, and the plaintiff can not recover the originals due to the subsequent purchaser's fraudulent act.

Furthermore, in relation to the scope of revocation of a fraudulent act, the revocation of a fraudulent act is intended to restore the debtor's assets offered as joint collateral for general creditors to the status of transfer of the fraudulent act. Thus, in case where a third party orders compensation for the value of the assets after a fraudulent act, the creditor's joint collateral for general creditors at the time of the fraudulent act, but in principle, the creditor who exercises the right of revocation cannot exercise the right of revocation exceeding his/her claim amount. Thus, if the value of the above real estate exceeds the creditor's claim amount, the fraudulent act should be revoked within the extent of the claim amount and the compensation should be ordered.

In this case, according to the above facts, since the secured obligation with respect to the real estate in this case was established at L/C at the time of the fraudulent act in this case, 1/2 of the amount calculated by deducting the secured obligation amount of 30,000,000, from the market price of the real estate in this case at 105,000,000, and the above secured obligation amount of 37,500,000, the above secured obligation amount is below the above responsible property amount of 33,603,200, the fraudulent act in this case should be revoked within the delinquent amount of the tax, and the defendant must be ordered to pay the amount in arrears with the restoration to the original state following the revocation of the fraudulent act.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant and Kim △△△△ on September 9, 2007 with respect to one half of the real estate in this case.

28. The contract of gift to be concluded is canceled within the limit of 33,603, and 200 won in arrears, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 33,603, and 200 won, as well as damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as provided by the Civil Act from the day following the day this decision becomes final and conclusive to the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the provisional execution declaration, which the plaintiff seeks, is not allowed due to the nature of the claim for revocation of fraudulent act which takes effect due to the final judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition not to attach it.