Donation of property in arrears shall be a fraudulent act detrimental to the taxation right holder;

It constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff who is a taxation right holder, barring special circumstances, by donating his/her own property to the defendant under the circumstance that he/she bears the obligation to pay national taxes, and thereby omitting his/her obligation to

1. The contract for donation concluded on November 8, 2004 between the defendant and the non-party ○○○ shall be revoked with respect to the share of 698.96/49/49 out of 00 00 - 00 - Dong 00 - 21,845 m2.

2. On November 11, 2004, the Defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was made under No. 00000 on November 11, 2004 with respect to the portion of 698.96/49/49 of forest land of 00 Do 000,000 Do 000,000.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: there is no dispute between the parties, or the entry of Gap evidence 1, 2-1, 3, and 5-2.

A. Around April 10, 200, the head of ○○○○ Tax Office under the Defendant transferred his share of 00 Do 000 and 00 Do 00,000 and 6 parcels of forest land, and issued a preliminary return of capital gains tax on August 5, 2002, and notified the payment deadline for capital gains tax of 16,761,422 on August 31, 2002. ② On May 31, 2002, he transferred the same 00 Do 562 m2 to another person, and did not pay capital gains tax on 30 m2.37 m27 m2, 2002 and did not pay capital gains tax accordingly.

B. On the other hand, on November 8, 2004, ○○○ donated 00:00 Do 000 Do 21,845 m21,845 m21,785 m2 (hereinafter “instant land share”) to the Defendant, the husband, who is the Defendant, the husband, the share of 698.96 m29,785 m2. On the other hand, on November 8, 2004, 00 district 00 00 m2000 received on November 11, 2004.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, under the circumstance where ○○○○ is liable to pay each transfer income tax on the Plaintiff, it constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, which is one of the sole property of which the Defendant, and thereby was placed in excess of the obligation, barring any special circumstances. ○○○ is presumed to have known that the above donation was detrimental to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, the beneficiary, also is presumed to have been maliciously committed.

Thus, the above contract of donation between ○○ and the defendant on November 8, 2004 on the portion of the land in this case shall be revoked, and the defendant shall be obliged to implement the procedure for cancellation of the above transfer of ownership registration made on November 11, 2004 with respect to the portion of the land in this case as of November 11, 2004.

B. The defendant merely received the share of the land of this case on the condition that ○○○ shall repay the bonds, etc. borne by ○○○○, and the defendant did not know that the above donation constituted a fraudulent act. However, the presumption of bad faith cannot be reversed merely because the defendant received the share of the land of this case on the condition that ○○○ bonds, etc. were repaid by ○○○○○, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the defendant's good faith.

3. Conclusion

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