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

A. The Defendant and Nonparty B concluded on December 17, 2012.

1. According to the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1, 2, and 4-1, 4-3, 5, and 6 as to the plaintiff's assertion of the cause of claim, the facts of the cause of claim are acknowledged.

According to the above facts of recognition, B, the only property on December 17, 2012, was donated to the defendant on the attached list, which was the only property on December 17, 2012, led to the excess of liability.

As such, the gift contract of December 17, 2012 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate list between B and the defendant is a fraudulent act, which causes the lack of common security of the general creditors against B by the plaintiff et al.

Therefore, the above contract of gift as of December 17, 2012 must be revoked, and the defendant is obligated to implement each procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 83768 as of December 17, 2012 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet as the restoration to its original state B.

2. The Defendant asserts that the disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 170,606,080 against the Plaintiff as of May 1, 2013 against B, claiming the revocation of the fraudulent act in this case, which was alleged by the Plaintiff as the preserved claim, is unlawful, and thus, the instant claim in this case should be dismissed as it did not exist.

However, there is a reason that the taxation can be revoked, unless the taxation is deemed to be null and void as a matter of course.

The taxation disposition is valid until it is legally revoked by the fairness or executory power of the administrative act.

As such, the validity of the above taxation disposition cannot be denied in the civil procedure (Supreme Court Decision 9Da20179 delivered on August 20, 199). Unless there is any assertion or proof as to the invalidity of the pertinent taxation disposition, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted on the grounds of all the reasons.