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 citing the judgment of the court of first instance b, and that of the judgment of the court of first instance b.

paragraphs 1 and 3.1

2) Except in cases where a clause (A) is used as follows, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such clause is quoted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. 【The date when the obligee became aware of the cause of revocation”, which is the starting point for the exclusion period in the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation, means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while being aware that it would prejudice the obligee.

It is not enough that the debtor simply stated that he/she disposed of the property, and it is also necessary to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that he/she had an intention to know about the debtor.

(see, i.e., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da247707, Jun. 15, 2017). In the case of a State that administers various affairs, a public official in charge of different affairs becomes aware of only some of the elements of a fraudulent act in the course of performing his/her duties. Thus, it cannot be said that the State to which the public official belongs recognized the existence of a fraudulent act and the intention of deception.

Therefore, B submitted a written agreement on the division of inherited property to Dong Daegu Tax Office, or received it by a tax official to impose inheritance tax, and such fact alone constitutes a fraudulent act by a tax official or the Plaintiff, who is in charge of the collection and preservation of the taxation claim, including value-added tax, constitutes a fraudulent act.

It is difficult to see that there was an intention to cause harm or injury to B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits cannot be accepted.

【A) The Defendant: (a) completed the statute of limitations after the lapse of five years from the date of each establishment of B’s tax liability; and (b) the Plaintiff’s 2008-9098 deposit (B) in the Incheon District Court against the Republic of Korea for the collection of delinquent taxes.