Any act of completing provisional registration and principal registration of the sole property among the property bearing tax liability is a fraudulent act.

Unless there are special circumstances, the act of concluding a pre-sale agreement and a sales contract with the mother of real estate which is the only property among those liable to pay capital gains tax and completing provisional registration and principal registration constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff et al.

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

1. The purchase and sale reservation entered into on October 27, 2005 and the sales contract entered into on June 2, 2008 between the Defendant and Yellow-si, respectively, shall be revoked.

2. The Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on October 27, 2005 by the Seoul Western District Court and the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on October 27, 2005 by the receipt of No. 57944, and the registration of the same court and the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on July 16, 2008 by the receipt of No. 4576.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

가. 황☆☆은 2003. 4. 25. 안◎시 상◎구 ◎◎동 ◎54-11 소재 부동산을 양도하고, 2003. 6. 30. 원고 산하의 안산세무서장에게 '양도가액 380，000，000원, 취득가액 360，000，000원'으로 하여 양도소득세 예정신고를 하였다.

B. The head of the tax office of Ansansan shall clarify the under-reported return of the transfer income tax by the Yellow-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor and the head of the tax office.

6. 1. On July 15, 2008, the payment deadline for the obligation to pay the income tax of 149,436, and 340 won to the Yellow-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, but the payment deadline was not made.

C. On October 27, 2005, the Yellow-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor concluded a pre-sale agreement with the Defendant on the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with his mother, and completed the registration of the ownership transfer claim in the future of the Defendant on the same day.

D. After that, on July 16, 2008, the Seoul Special Self-Governing Province completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate to the Defendant on the grounds of sale on June 2, 2008.

E. Meanwhile, it was the property that was the reason for the instant real estate at the time of entering into a purchase and sale contract with the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfed Facts, Evidence 1, 2, Evidence 3-1, 2, Evidence 4, 9, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination

(a)the existence of the covered claim;

It is necessary to say that the claim which can be protected by the obligee's right of revocation has occurred prior to the occurrence of a fraudulent act, in principle, even though there has been a legal relationship which is the basis of harming the unregistered claim at the time of the fraudulent act, it is highly difficult to say that the claim is formed by the legal relationship at the time of the fraudulent act, and the claim can also be preserved by the obligee's right of revocation in the case where the claim is actual reality and the claim is formed by the real reality. (See Supreme Court Decision 9Da53704 delivered on February 25, 2000, etc.).

In this case, according to the above facts and the facts acknowledged in the above facts, the △△△△△ on October 2005.

27. The Plaintiff’s taxation claim in this case was not realized at the time when the Plaintiff’s right to claim transfer of ownership was made pursuant to the purchase and sale reservation and the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership was completed. However, there was a high probability that the Plaintiff’s taxation claim in the near future would be realized. In fact, the Plaintiff’s tax claim in this case against the Yellow △△△△, a notice of tax payment of transfer income tax was issued on the grounds that the Plaintiff filed a return of transfer income tax on the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership in the middle of the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim in the

(b) Fraudulent act;

In the event that the Dokdong-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City entered into a purchase and sale agreement and completed provisional registration and principal registration with the Defendant, the mother of the instant real estate, the sole property of which the Plaintiff had been liable to pay the transfer income tax, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, etc., as the obligee, barring any special circumstance, the intention of the Dokdong-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City is ratified, and the Defendant’s bad faith

이에 대하여 피고는, 황☆☆이 2005. 9. 23. 이 사건 부동산을 ▢▢맨숀재건축주택 조합으로부터 매수할 당시 피고가 황☆☆에게 135，000，000원을 대여하여 주고 그 담보 로 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 매매예약을 체결하고 소유권이전청구권가등기를 마쳤을 뿐이고, 황☆☆에 대하여 양도소득세가 경정 부과될 것임을 알지 못하였으며, 이 사건 부동산 매매예약 및 매매계약이 사해행위에 해당한다는 것을 알지 못하였다고 항변하나, 을제1, 3호증의 각 기재만으로는 피고의 선의를 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으며, 피고가 양도소득세 과소신고에 따른 양도소득세가 황☆☆에게 부과되리라는 것을 충분히 예상할 수 있었다 할 것이므로, 피고의 위 항변은 이유 없다

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.