Whether it constitutes revocation of fraudulent act

The defendants defense that the defendants were bona fide beneficiaries who had known the circumstance that they would prejudice the creditors at the time of the above gift contract. However, there is no evidence to prove this point, and the defendants' assertion is without merit.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation

1. The contract of donation concluded on December 13, 2004 with respect to 1/9 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant, the designated parties, and the least 00 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. The defendant and the designated parties will implement the procedure for the cancellation of each registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on January 3, 2005 by the receipt No. 183, 00 district court 00 branch court 00 branch court 180 branch court 10

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

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1 through 14 (including the serial number):

A. From March 200 to 1994, the maximum amount of 00, the father of the Defendant and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendants”) is delinquent in global income tax of 305,744,161 won, and global income tax of 1997 to 422,708,000 won (excluding each additional charge).

B. On December 13, 2004, the above maximum 00 donated 1/9 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the only property of the Defendants, to the Defendants. The Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 183 on January 3, 2005 with respect to each of the real estate shares in this case, as to each of the real estate shares in this case.

2. Determination

A. According to the above, the maximum 00 won was donated to the Defendants, who are the only property of this case, even though they bear tax liability equivalent to the additional dues on the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. This act constitutes a fraudulent act committed by knowing that the act would prejudice the Plaintiff, who is the obligee by reducing the liability property, and the Defendants, who are beneficiaries, were presumed to have known of such circumstances at the time of the donation contract.

B. The defendants defense that they were bona fide beneficiaries who had known that they would harm creditors at the time of the above gift contract. However, there is no evidence to prove this point. Thus, the defendants' assertion is groundless.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the gift agreement concluded between the Defendants and the maximum 00 on December 13, 2004 with respect to each of the instant real estate shares is revoked as a fraudulent act and thus, the Defendants are obligated to cancel each of the above registration of transfer of ownership as to each of the instant real estate shares to be restored to their original state. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.