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. In the first instance court’s judgment, the Plaintiff sought the cancellation of the gift agreement of KRW 130,000,000 between the Defendant and B as the primary claim on April 30, 2009 and the equivalent equivalent amount. The Plaintiff sought the cancellation of the title trust agreement between the Defendant and B, which was entered into on April 30, 2009 with the primary claim, and sought the cancellation of the title trust agreement between the Defendant and B and the equivalent equivalent amount. The first instance court rejected the primary claim and accepted the preliminary claim.

Since the defendant appealed only against this, this Court decides only the conjunctive claim.

2. Basic facts

A. B entered into a contract on April 15, 2009 with respect to selling at KRW 727,000,000 to G the eightth floor D and E-ground F No. 801 and 802 (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”).

B. On December 9, 2011, the head of the Gu-affiliated District Tax Office determined and notified that B shall pay capital gains tax and additional tax of KRW 145,208,716 under the above sales contract and local income tax of KRW 14,520,871, as B did not make a final return of tax base pursuant to the above sales contract. However, as of February 28, 2013, B failed to pay it, and as of February 28, 2013, B was KRW 168,732,470.

C. B received KRW 130,00,000 out of the price under the above sales contract as a check, and on April 30, 2009, deposited the said money into the Defendant’s NAF branch account (Account Number C; hereinafter “instant account”). D.

B, around April 30, 2009, the deposit was active property around April 30, 2009, and the deposit was in excess of 10,915,884 won, and the small property was in excess of 149,564,970 won of capital gains tax against the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the act of title trust against the instant account constitutes a fraudulent act.