1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion B was expected to have a high probability of establishing a tax liability against the Plaintiff in the amount of KRW 567,025,560, and donated real estate indicated in the separate sheet to the Defendant, the wife on March 7, 2012, which was the previous wife, to the Defendant, and thus, the said gift contract ought to be revoked by fraudulent act.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. From December 1, 1994, the Defendant’s husband B operated D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) with a steel processing business as a business in Busan Metropolitan City Shipping Daegu C (hereinafter “D”) (B) with D’s 90.46% of D’s shares, D’s 208 sales have deteriorated due to a sudden decrease in sales after 2008, and all of its business assets were transferred on October 26, 201 and closed on March 31, 2012 without business performance after 201.

B. B, on March 7, 2012, donated the real estate indicated in the attached list to the Defendant, who is the wife, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on March 14, 2012.

C. However, the head of the competent tax office under the Plaintiff-affiliatedd tax investigation conducted on D from September 17, 2012 to December 7, 2012, 2012, and discovered that D under-paid national taxes were to have been paid by means of collecting low-price rents from affiliated companies from 2007 to 2009, including unfair depreciation costs for unused machinery, equipment, etc. in deductible expenses, etc., and it did not pay D corporate tax of 218,461,720, corporate tax of 207; corporate tax of 2008; corporate tax of 12,206,000; corporate tax of 218,461,720; corporate tax of 209; and corporate tax of 218,461,720; and corporate tax of 209 to March 6, 2013 was designated as a taxpayer pursuant to Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; however, the amount of national tax was not paid.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant taxation claim”). [Grounds for recognition] Each entry in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

3. Determination

A. At the time of March 7, 2012, there was a high probability that the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against B may be established, and the instant case is similar thereto in the near future.