The contract to establish a right to collateral security is a fraudulent act under excess of a debt.

In a case where the amount of joint security of claims becomes insufficient due to a contract establishing a right to collateral security in excess of obligations, it constitutes a fraudulent act.

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

1. The contract to establish a mortgage concluded on October 22, 2007 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and the non-party Gangseo-gu shall be revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage near the area of registration completed as No. 14518, Oct. 23, 2007, such as the Daegu District Court of Daegu District on each real estate listed in the separate sheet, with respect to the non-party 518.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. As a result, the director of the tax office under the Plaintiff’s jurisdiction issued a tax notice of KRW 378,202,710 on September 5, 2007 to October 8, 2007 on the part of the non-party corporation 1, 204,09, 130 won of corporate tax and KRW 4 items 274,103,580 of value-added tax and KRW 378,202,710 on December 31, 2007 to the company of this case.

B. After that, as the instant company failed to pay the above taxes imposed on it, on January 23, 2008, the director of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Tax Office designated and notified the Non-party 5 15,288,910 won in total, 159,676,630 won in corporate tax 2, 44,387,720 won in total, and 4,115,720 won in total, and value-added tax amount.

C. On October 22, 2007, Nonparty 5 concluded a mortgage agreement (hereinafter “mortgage agreement”) with the Defendant, who is his wife, with a maximum debt amount of 200 million won as to each of the ancillary properties indicated in the separate sheet as indicated in the separate sheet. On October 23, 2007, Nonparty 518, the Daegu District Court of Daegu, Daegu, and the Daegu District Court of the District Court of the District Court of the District Court of the District Court of the District Court of 145.18.

[Reason] Facts without dispute, evidence Nos. 1 and 3, evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, evidence Nos. 5, evidence Nos. 61 through 6, and evidence Nos. 7

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. Formation of preserved claims

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation in the near future where there exists a legal relationship that has already been based on which the claim was established at the time of such fraudulent act, and there is high probability to the effect that the claim would have been established in the near future based on such legal relationship, and where a claim has been realized in the near future and became effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37821, Mar.

As seen earlier, the instant company is undergoing a corporate tax investigation from September 5, 2007 to October 8, 2007, and there was a legal relationship that forms the basis for establishing a claim, and it is probable that there was a disposition of tax payment based on the tax investigation in the near future. In fact, there was a tax disposition by the Plaintiff on the instant company in the near future and the second tax payment disposition by the Plaintiff on the Non-party 1, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against Non-party 1 for the second tax payment disposition by the Non-party 2, 2007 against Non-party 5, is the preserved claim of the instant fraudulent act lawsuit.

In regard to this, the defendant argued that the second taxpayer designation disposition against the non-party 2 against the non-party 2 is an illegal and unfair disposition not falling under the provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and therefore, according to the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 2, the non-party 4-2, the non-party 5, who is the shareholder holding 40% of the company's shares in the company of this case, and the representative director Gangwon-gu, who is the shareholder holding 20% of the company of this case's shares in the company of this case, and the shareholder holding 40% of the company of this case's shares in the company of this case, and directly receiving documents related to the tax investigation dispatched by the plaintiff, etc., it can be recognized that the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du983, Sep. 11, 2008).

B. Whether to commit a fraudulent act

As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that, at the time of the expiration of the tax investigation period of the company in this case, the non-party 1 and the defendant entered into the mortgage contract in this case with the defendant, so long as the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were presumed to have known that the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were insufficient to secure the claims of the plaintiff, who is the creditor, as a result, making it difficult to fully satisfy the claims by reducing the property of the non-party 1, and thereby making it difficult to satisfy the claims of the plaintiff. In light of the relations between the non-party 1 and the defendant, and the date, time, circumstances, etc. of the mortgage contract in this case, it is reasonable to view that the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were aware that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were insufficient to secure the claims due to the contract in this case. As long as

In this regard, the defendant argues that the contract to establish the mortgage of this case was concluded on the basis of the fact that he actually borrowed money to the non-party 1, and that there is no intention to do so. Therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize the testimony of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the witness 1, the witness 2, and the testimony of the non-party 1, the witness 2, and there is no other evidence to

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the mortgage contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act and thus, is revoked, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case as to each real estate listed in the attached

3. Conclusion

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