1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 23, 2017, C sold to D the land and above ground buildings in Gwangju Northern-gu E and F (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to KRW 2.35 million. However, C did not pay to the Plaintiff capital gains tax of KRW 169,284,840 (the notified tax amount of KRW 151,98,260, additional tax of KRW 17,326,320) imposed in relation to the sale of the said real estate.

B. Meanwhile, C, on June 26, 2017, delivered to Defendant B, who was the father of the instant real estate purchase price received from D, a check of the amount of KRW 75 million in the amount of KRW 75 million, which was the mother of the instant real estate purchase price, to Defendant A, the mother of which was the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff C knew that the transfer income tax on the instant real estate will be notified, it donated KRW 75 million to the Defendants respectively.

As a result, C lost active property, and 113,437,815 won of negative property was omitted in excess of debt.

This is a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is a taxation right, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary.

C Termination of the gift agreement concluded between C and the Defendants within the limit of 113,437,815 won (in the case of Defendant A, the full amount of KRW 75 million, and in the case of Defendant B, KRW 38,437,815), and seek to pay the cancelled amount to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendants lent KRW 150 million to C who constructed a building on the above land to use it as construction cost.

(50 million won on September 1, 2014, and 100 million won on December 26, 2014). A check received by the Defendants C is duly received under the pretext of repayment of the above loan.

3. In the event that a debtor has donated his/her own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, such act would constitute a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances, however, in the event that the debtor, while in excess of his/her obligation, becomes a result of the decrease in the joint security of the other creditors by repaying the obligation to the specific creditor in accordance with the principal place of obligation,