The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows. A.

An act of paying money listed in the attached list between the defendant and B.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 9, 2017, B: (a) divided the 1,851 square meters in Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) concluded a contract for selling 925 square meters in the purchase price of KRW 700 million to two other parties (hereinafter “instant contract”); and (c) the said contract concluded on behalf of D, a buyer.

B. B paid KRW 40,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the money received as the purchase price pursuant to the instant sales contract on August 28, 2017, to the Defendant, who was

(hereinafter “instant act”). C.

By February 9, 2018, the Plaintiff issued a notice of capital gains tax as KRW 164,950,070 on the transfer of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. (1) In determining whether an obligor’s insolvency, which is the requirement to exercise the right of revocation of the relevant legal doctrine, is the subject of the establishment of the preserved claim. In principle, it is required that the passive property, which is the subject of the claim, was generated prior to the commission of a fraudulent act. However, at the time of the fraudulent act, the legal relationship which is the basis of the establishment of the obligation has already been established at the time of the fraudulent act, and there is high probability about the establishment of the obligation in the near future based on the legal relationship, and in the near future

(2) Article 21(2)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 16097, Dec. 31, 2018); and Article 21(2)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da68084, Jan. 13, 2011) should be deemed to be the last day of the month in which the transfer date of the instant land is included (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da68084, Aug. 31, 2017)

However, the sales contract was concluded on August 9, 2017 with respect to the instant land, and the sales price was the same.