1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 2, 2017, C entered into a sales contract with the purport that the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against C transfers 3,430,000 square meters of land and 964.62 square meters of buildings located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant transferred real estate”) to E for KRW 3,430,000,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to E on August 4, 2017, and reported the transfer income tax on October 25, 2017.

However, as of the filing date of the instant lawsuit, C’s unpaid capital gains tax amounting to approximately KRW 160,000,000 as of December 8, 2017, is equivalent to KRW 223,364,250 (hereinafter “instant tax claim”) as shown in the following table.

Tax amount notified as of the date of establishment of the tax liability to revert to the tax item (tax item) on December 31, 2017, 2017:

B. C’s real estate donation to Defendant A completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 3, 2017 due to the donation of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to Defendant A, a Chokon, on the same day (hereinafter “instant real estate donation”).

C. On November 27, 2017, C transferred KRW 274,826,300 to Defendant B’s account (hereinafter “transfer of the instant deposit”) and transferred KRW 150,00,000 to Defendant B’s account, the mother of Defendant A, by receiving deposit of KRW 274,826,300 from the remainder of the sale of the instant transferred real estate from the purchaser E on November 29, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant taxation claim is a preserved bond and that C’s gift and transfer of the instant real estate to the Defendants is a series of fraudulent acts causing insolvent by reducing C’s responsible property, and thus, the revocation and restoration against the Defendants shall be deemed to be a revocation and restoration.