Whether it constitutes a fraudulent act

transfer of ownership of one's sole property under the obligation to pay the transfer income tax is a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

§ 406. Revocation of Civil Code

1. The sales contract concluded on October 10, 2005 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and YO shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 394,891,310.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 394,891,310 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claim;

A. On December 2, 2002, 2002, the head of ○○ Tax Office, the Plaintiff’s affiliated organization, imposed capital gains tax on December 30, 2005 on the fact that the ○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○-dong, which is its ownership, transferred the site and above-ground buildings to ○○○○○-dong ○○○, on December 30, 2005 at the due date for payment

B. On October 10, 2005, under the circumstance that he was liable to pay the capital gains tax as above to the Plaintiff, on October 10, 2005, ○○○○ District Court ○○○○○○ District Office ○○○○○○○○ District Office 101852, which received on November 22, 2005, completed the registration of ownership transfer. On December 1, 2005, the Defendant concluded a mortgage contract on the said real estate with ○○○ District Office ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Office on December 1, 2005.

C. The Plaintiff asserts that the above sales contract between the Defendant and Ma○○ was a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditors, including the Plaintiff, and sought the revocation of the above sales contract and compensation for the equivalent amount within the limit of KRW 394,891,310, which is one of its own claim amount.

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings;