The division of property concluded on July 13, 2015 between the Defendant and B shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 310,826,290.

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) was established on January 12, 2006 and was engaged in manufacturing and installing machinery pipes, and B was appointed as the representative director of C on January 12, 2009, and retired from the office of representative director on May 26, 2015.

B. The Defendant married with B on July 4, 1991, but married on September 2, 2015, and died on July 12, 2019.

C. On September 3, 2015, the Plaintiff notified C of KRW 648,432,940 as earned income tax, but C did not pay it. On March 21, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) deemed that C’s property cannot collect labor income tax; and (b) notified B of the designation of B as a secondary taxpayer pursuant to Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the payment of KRW 314,76,660 as earned income tax.

B and the Defendant, on July 13, 2015, entered into a property division agreement (hereinafter “instant property division agreement”) with the following content, and thereafter, the Defendant received the repayment of the loan claim from D.

B The creditor and the debtor agreed to transfer the claim in the future to the defendant for a period of KRW 2,015,00,000,000 (hereinafter “the claim in this case”) corresponding to the remainder of the borrowed amount as D.

It shall transfer all the money deposited in the financial sphere at the time of the preparation of the agreement.

Recognizing the ownership of the housing in the name of the defendant (E, F) currently residing and in the name of the defendant in the register of the register, the ownership is recognized as the actual right holder. Other matters shall be agreed upon through a separate consultation.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul Nos. 1 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s assertion was known on February 12, 2018 that the lawsuit between the Defendant and D was in progress, and at that time, the existence of a fraudulent act, as alleged by the Plaintiff, was known.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff should reach the date of March 28, 2019, one year after the lapse of the pertinent one year.