1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the part concerning the evidence supporting the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant was aware that the sales contract between the defendant and the defendant was a fraudulent act, as evidence submitted in the court of first instance, as evidence submitted by the court of first instance, Eul's statement in Gap 9, which supported the plaintiff's assertion that the sales contract between the defendant and the defendant was a fraudulent act. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. On July 18, 2012, the Defendant’s main defenseal Plaintiff made a disposition of deficit on the capital gains tax imposed on B.

According to the provision on the collection of national taxes, the public official in charge of taxation shall investigate the property status and fraudulent act of the delinquent taxpayer at the time of the disposition of deficits. Therefore, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have known that each sales contract for real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) recorded in the separate sheet between B and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at the time of the disposition of deficits constituted fraudulent act.

However, even if it is not so, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have known that the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act on April 3, 2013 or August 2, 2013, which is the date of the scheduled determination of the transfer income tax on the instant real estate, etc. at the latest.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case brought after the lapse of one year from the above shall be dismissed as it is unlawful.

B. A lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act under Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act is a kind of lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act under Article 406 of the Civil Act. Since there are no special provisions that require different provisions in the Civil Act in its exercise, a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act should be filed within the period for filing a lawsuit under Article 406(2) of the Civil

On the other hand, in the exercise of creditor's right of revocation, the creditor is aware of the cause of cancellation.