Any act of making a provisional registration of the sole property to a relative with the burden of tax liability is presumed to be a fraudulent act.

In the situation where a tax liability is owed, a pre-contract for sale and purchase of the instant real estate, which is its sole property, was concluded, and the provisional registration of this case was completed, which seems to have been known to the effect that it would prejudice the plaintiff as the creditor by causing a shortage of responsible property.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. On September 27, 2005, the trade reservation signed on September 27, 2005 between the defendant Kim ○ and Lee ○○ and Lee ○○ shall be revoked.

2. As to the real estate which was received on September 27, 2005 as the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer and the same real estate completed on September 13, 2006 as the receipt of No. 55746 on July 13, 2006, Defendant Kim Jong-○ will implement each procedure for the cancellation of the right to claim ownership transfer registration, which was completed on July 13, 2006 by the registry office of Suwon District Court branch of Suwon District Court of Sung-

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2005, non-party 1 entered into a sale contract with non-party 2, 2005, ○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 4, 2005 with the Suwon District Court Branch of Suwon District Court No. 60650, 2005, which did not report and pay the gift tax, and the head of Sungnam District Tax Office under his control determined the ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate as KRW 97,050,730 on January 2, 2007 and notified that the above transfer registration of the ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate should be made by the non-party 2, 207 to the above ○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”), and the defendant 2, 2005, the title transfer registration of the instant real estate was received by the non-party 3,207.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3, purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the fraudulent act is constituted;

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s gift tax claim against Lee ○○ constitutes the obligee’s right of revocation on July 4, 2005, prior to September 27, 2005, which was the date of the instant trade reservation, and thus, it constitutes the obligee’s right of revocation on the instant trade reservation.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

According to the above facts, in the situation where ○○○ bears the obligation to pay the gift tax as seen earlier to the Plaintiff, he concluded a pre-sale agreement with Defendant Kim○○ on September 27, 2005 on the instant real estate, which is one of his sole property, and completed the provisional registration of this case. This ○○ appears to have been aware that, due to the above pre-sale agreement, the act of entering into such a pre-sale agreement, caused the shortage of responsible property to the Plaintiff, thereby impairing the Plaintiff, who is the obligee. As long as the obligor’s intention is recognized, the bad faith between Defendant Kim○, the beneficiary, and Defendant Kim○,

C. Determination on the assertion by Defendant Kim ○○

As to this, Defendant Kim ○, Inc.: (a) the instant real estate was registered in title on April 13, 2005 with respect to the Defendants’ mother, Kim ○, Kim ○; (b) on July 13, 2005, Defendant Kim ○○ registered the right to claim ownership transfer on the instant real estate in relation to his/her shares in inheritance; (c) in the process of cancelling the said provisional registration in order to obtain a loan from the bank as collateral, this ○○ cancelled the said provisional registration, and recovering the provisional registration again, the instant right to claim ownership transfer was registered on September 27, 2005 in the name of Defendant Kim ○, Defendant Kim ○, a punishment on the side of the bank in the process of restoring the provisional registration. To correct this, it was concluded on April 13, 2006 with the Defendants, and completed the additional registration to transfer the above right to claim ownership transfer registration on the instant real estate on April 13, 2006; and (d) according to the registration entered in the ownership transfer registration on the instant real estate under the above provisional registration, the Defendant’s assertion was revoked.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the pre-contract on September 27, 2005, which was concluded between Lee○○ and Defendant Kim○○ on the instant real estate, constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the pre-contract on September 27, 2005 should be revoked. As a restoration to its original state, Defendant Kim○ has the obligation to implement each procedure for the registration of the provisional registration of the right

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.