(1) The act of donation by a delinquent taxpayer to his sole real property constitutes a fraudulent act

Unless there are any special circumstances, it is fraudulent that the only real estate owned by the defaulted taxpayer has been registered for transfer of ownership on the ground of donation to children.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

1. The contract of donation concluded on November 7, 2007 between the defendant and high ○○ shall be revoked with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

2. The defendant shall implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was made under No. 204160 on November 19, 2007, with respect to the real estate in the attached Form No. 1 to ○○○.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Formation of the Plaintiff’s taxation claim

The head of ○○○○○ Tax Office, the Plaintiff’s head of ○○○○○○○, notified Nonparty 34,593,439 won of global income tax on October 31, 2007, but did not pay the amount of KRW 34,593,439 of global income tax on the payment period. As of the filing date of the claim, the amount of the tax claim on Nonparty ○○○○○○○ was 37,291

2. Fraudulent act;

The non-party ○○○ (hereinafter “the real estate of this case”) donated on November 7, 2007, the real estate indicated in the [Attachment List (hereinafter “the real estate of this case”) which is one’s own real estate, to the defendant, who is friendly with the decision of notifying the national tax by the head of the tax office ○○○○○○○○○○, but did not perform the payment, and made the registration of ownership transfer on November 19, 2007 due to donation with the receipt number of the Gwangju District Court 204160.

3. The intention of an injury.

A. The intention of Nonparty 1’s high-ranking ○

In light of the fact that Nonparty 1 received a tax payment notice from the tax office and received a tax payment notice despite the intention to pay it, the Defendant, who is the child of his or her own real estate, was donated to the Defendant. Nonparty 1, 200, who was aware of the fact that the instant real estate was donated to the Defendant 1, 200, and 300.

B. Non-party 1's non-party 1

The non-party ○○ had no other property at the time of receiving the registration of transfer of ownership by donation of the instant real estate to the Defendant.

4. Bad faith of the defendant

The Defendant is the natives of Nonparty 1, ○○○, and Nonparty 1 did not have any other property except the instant real estate. Therefore, at the time of concluding a contract on donation of the instant real estate, the Defendant ought to be deemed to have known the fact that the instant gift was an intentional act, and that Nonparty 1 was aware of the intention of the deceased ○○○.

3. Conclusion;

Therefore, the non-party 1, as the donee, completed the registration of ownership transfer by donation of the real estate of this case with the defendant as the donee, constitutes a fraudulent act committed with the purpose of undermining tax creditors by a mutual agreement between the father and his related party, and thus, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case to seek implementation of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer by donation under the name of the defendant, such as the purport