Whether it constitutes a fraudulent act when acquiring property of a delinquent taxpayer without succession to loans;

The act of acquiring the instant real estate, the only property of the delinquent taxpayer, without succession, while residing in the same address as the delinquent taxpayer, constitutes a fraudulent act committed with knowledge that it would prejudice the State of the Plaintiff.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

1. The sales contract concluded on November 3, 2006 between the defendant and the non-party ○○○ is revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration completed on November 3, 2006 by the receipt No. 22950 for the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

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;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings;

Article 208(3)1 of the Civil Procedure Act

Inventory Real Estate

1. ○○○-si ○○-dong 445-1 317 square meters;

2. Ground above;

Cement bricks, splates, roof single-storys, 5.64m2

The end of 7.14 square meters in a single floor of cement brick structure slives slives slives.

Cheongwon of the Gu

1. Formation of tax claims;

Nonparty 112 dong-1402 on September 29, 2006, and Non-Party ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ apartment in Gyeonggi-do on November 30, 2006, after filing a preliminary return of capital gains tax and making a non-payment on November 30, 2006, notified capital gains tax of KRW 102,938,830 on January 7, 2007, but did not pay until now.

The amount of tax payable to the non-party ○○○ by the head of the competent tax office is at the risk of KRW 113,438,550 as of the filing date of the claim.

2. Fraudulent act;

On November 3, 2006, 2006, Nonparty ○○○○○○○○○○○ Office of the Gwangju District Court made the registration of ownership transfer number No. 22950 to the Defendant who resides in the same address with the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”).

3. The intention of an injury.

A. The intention of the non-party ○○’s death

The non-party ○○○ appears to have completed the registration of ownership transfer with Defendant ○○○, who resides in the same address and failed to pay taxes, in order to transfer the real estate, expect that taxes would have not been paid after the preliminary return of transfer income tax, and expect that taxes would be notified, and to be exempted from the disposition of arrears such as seizure, etc., and thus, the non-party ○○○ was aware that the non-party ○○

B. Non-party ○○’s insolvent

At the time of the transfer registration of ownership of the instant real estate to the Defendant, Nonparty ○○ was in an insolvent state because there was no other property than the instant real estate.

4. Bad faith of the defendant

The defendant and the non-party ○○○, who had been residing in the same address, are not aware of whether the defendant actually acquired the real estate of this case, because the defendant did not succeed to bank loans and decided to know the non-party ○○○, etc., and it should be deemed that the defendant knew of the fact that the transfer of ownership at the time of the transfer of ownership of the real estate of this case was a fraudulent act, and that the defendant knew of the intention of the non-party ○○○○'s deliberation.

5. Conclusion;

In light of the above facts, the act of transfer of ownership of the real estate in this case by Nonparty ○○ constitutes a fraudulent act committed with the knowledge that it would prejudice the creditor, and the defendant also knew the fact. Thus, the defendant was seeking to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant, which was completed with respect to the real estate in this case as restitution to the plaintiff