Revocation of Fraudulent Act

The assertion that real estate was transferred under the pretext of consolation money shall not be recognized because its credibility is insufficient.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation

1. The contract of donation concluded on March 29, 2005 between ○○ and ○○○○○○ and Defendant 1○○○○○ shall be revoked.

2. As to the real estate listed in the annexed list 1, Defendant 1○○○○ shall implement each procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on March 31, 2005 by ○○ District Court ○○○○○ Registry, which was completed on March 31, 2005, and ○○○○○○, which was completed on May 19, 2005 by 000, respectively.

3. The Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Defendant 1○○ are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1○○○○○ is assessed against the Plaintiff and the above Defendant 50%, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2○○○○○○ is assessed against

On May 13, 2005, a property division contract between ○○○ and Defendant 1○○○○ on real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 is revoked. The above Defendant’s execution of the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under the receipt No. 0000 on May 24, 2005, by the ○○ District Court and ○○○○○○○○○.

1. Factual basis

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

A. From 2000 to 2002, ○○○, which operates a wholesale company for a sanitary site, omitted additional taxes due to the omission of sales. On March 22, 2005, the Plaintiff sent a notice of explanation of taxation data to ○○○○ on March 22, 2005, and notified the payment of value-added tax of KRW 68,739,180 in total around April 2005.

B. The ○○○○○ transferred each real estate indicated in the separate sheet, such as the text and purport of the claim, to Defendant 1○○○○○, as indicated in the separate sheet, without any other property. Defendant 1○○○○○ was married with the ○○○○○○○ on March 18, 1998, and the agreement was married on April 16, 2005. Meanwhile, Defendant 1○○○ transferred the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 again to Defendant 2○○○○○○○○○. As regards the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2, the maximum debt amount of KRW 10

2. Whether the fraudulent act is constituted;

(a) Real estate listed in attached Table 1;

In light of the developments leading up to the transfer of real estate as seen earlier and the relationship between ○○○ and Defendant 1○○○○, etc., the above donation contract ought to be revoked by fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is a tax

Defendant 1’s ○○○ transferred the above real estate under the pretext of consolation money in divorce with ○○○○○, and Defendant 20○○○ again transferred the above real estate in accord with the contract 22 million won, and each of them was unaware of the circumstances that they were fraudulent act. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone cannot be said to have proved that they were bona fide. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.

(b) The real estate listed in the attached list 2;

In light of the facts that Defendant 1○○○ is an insurance solicitor for the life of marriage with ○○○○○○, and that he earned a certain amount of income while engaging in economic activities, such as operating ○○○ cafeteria, etc., in divorce with ○○○○○○○, Defendant Jeong Young-young resides in the above real estate along with two children, and that he bears school expenses of son’s universities (which is the ground for recognition: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, the purport of the entire pleadings, etc.), etc., it is difficult to view that the division of property on the attached list 2 as owned by 10○○○○○, and thus, it does not constitute a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, a creditor.

[List1] ○○do ○○○-dong 301-102 Large 53 square meters and buildings

[List2] ○○do ○○-dong ○○○-dong 134-6 large scale 105 square meters and buildings