the debtor's donation to his or her wife of such

The plaintiff's act of entering into a donation contract with the defendant, the only property of the defendant, who is the plaintiff's debtor, and completing the registration of ownership transfer for the above real estate, constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it harms other creditors, and the defendant's bad faith as the beneficiary is presumed.

1. Revocation of the gift agreement on July 15, 2005 between the defendant and the non-party Kim○ (resident registration number: 61*****-1********) on the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the ownership transfer registration that was completed as * on July 18, 2005, received on July 18, 2005 by the △△△△△△△△ registry office on the real estate listed in the attached list

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The plaintiff's claim and judgment

The facts in the attached form of claim do not conflict between the parties or can be recognized by revealing the overall purport of the pleading in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5. Thus, the act of Non-party Kim ○, the debtor of the plaintiff, concluded a donation contract with the defendant, which is the only property of the defendant, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership to the above real estate, constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice other creditors. Meanwhile, the defendant's bad faith as the beneficiary is presumed. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant and the non-party Kim ○○, the defendant revoked the real estate donation contract concluded between the defendant and the non-party Kim ○, and the defendant is obligated to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed ** ○○ District Court ○○○○ on July 18, 2005.

2. Determination as to the defendant's bona fide defense

Although the Defendant asserts to the effect that he is a bona fide beneficiary, it is difficult to accept it as there is no evidence supporting this.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Grounds of Claim

1. Formation of tax claims;

The non-party ○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○, a business entity runs from September 28, 2002 to January 31, 2006. The Kim○ filed a value-added tax base return on the said business establishment from January 28, 2002 to January 31, 2006, but the head of the tax office issued a notice of KRW 82,926,240 to the Plaintiff’s head of the tax office. However, the Plaintiff did not pay only part of the value-added tax so notified, and the Plaintiff did not collect national taxes, including additional dues and aggravated additional dues, from September 28, 2002.

Sub-Items :

E =

Liability for Tax Payment

Date of establishment

Deadline for payment

guidance.

Principal Tax

Additional Dues

Value-added Tax

04.1 Colors

04.06.30

04.09.30

278,500

278,500

0

Value-added Tax

04.2 Colors

04.09.30

04.10.25

32,949,080

26,199,680

6,749,400

Value-added Tax

04.2 Colors

04.2.31

05.03.31

8,808,060

7,352,410

1,455,650

Value-added Tax

05.1 Colors

05.03.31

05.06.30

12,700,750

10,930,090

1,770,660

Consolidateds

54,736,390

44,760,680

9,975,710

(A) Evidence No. 1)

2. Fraudulent act;

On July 18, 2005, 2005, ○○ District Court △△△△△△ completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant as the receipt number 20** on July 18, 2005.

(A) Evidence 2

3. Reduction of responsible property;

At the time of July 18, 2005, the market price of the real estate in this case is presumed to be KRW 130,000,000 (Evidence A) and the delinquent taxpayer, due to the above fraudulent act, reduced the amount of senior debts at the market price in this case, and reduced the amount of liability property equivalent to the remaining amount after deducting senior debts from the above transaction price.

(A) Evidence No. 3

4. The intention of an injury.

Since the date of establishment of the liability for value-added tax payment, Kim ○, a delinquent taxpayer, was without filing a value-added tax return, and the real estate in this case, which is the only property owned by him, was deemed to have been donated to the Defendant, who was the delinquent taxpayer.

(A) Evidence No. 4

5. Bad faith of the defendant

At the time of donation of the instant real estate to the Defendant by Nonparty ○○ and the Defendant, Nonparty ○ and the Defendant were the married couple, and at the time of donation by Nonparty ○○, the Defendant knew that Nonparty ○○ had no other property than the instant real estate, and thus, the Defendant was aware of the fact that this sale was a fraudulent act at the time of receipt of the instant real estate and the intention of Nonparty ○○’s deliberation.

(A) Evidence No. 5 1 to 3)

6. The date on which he becomes aware of a fraudulent act;

The head of ○○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff did not pay the taxes notified to Nonparty Kim○-○ within the payment deadline for the notice of non-payment of value-added tax, but was issued on November 9, 2005 a list of data on the status of delinquent property, etc. (D/B) and became aware of the fraudulent act of the instant real estate.

(A) Evidence No. 4

7. Conclusion

In light of these facts, the act of donation of the real estate in this case by Kim ○○ constitutes a fraudulent act committed while knowing that it would prejudice the plaintiff, and the defendant was also aware of such fact. Therefore, the plaintiff was caused to the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the contract of donation and cancellation of the transfer of ownership registration as stated in the claim

"Attached Form"

Attached List

○ Indication of one building

Do Governor-Do △△△○○○ apartment

○ Indication of section of exclusive ownership

Gu Article : Plateral Shelf of reinforced concrete structure

Myeon-type: No. 907 square meters 59.73 square meters of the nine stories

○ Indication of Site Ownership

Display of land: △△△△ ○○○○○, Do, △△△ City.

Large 8,409 square meters

Type of Site Ownership: Ownership

The ratio of right to a site: 24.66/8,09.