Whether the subject matter of a fraudulent act lawsuit is subject to

The Plaintiff’s only donation of the Plaintiff’s only real property to his wife is subject to revocation of a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

1. As to the real estate stated in the attached list, the contract of donation concluded on April 23, 2004 between Defendant Kim○ and Red○○, and the contract of mortgage establishment concluded on May 21, 2004 between Defendant Red○○ and Defendant Kim○○○, shall be revoked.

2. With respect to real estate described in paragraph 1:

A. Defendant Kim○-○ shall implement the procedure for the cancellation of registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration which was completed on April 23, 2004 by the District Court No. 00000 on April 23, 2004.

B. Defendant Red○○ shall implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of creation of collateral security rights, which was completed by the ○○ District Court No. 00000 on May 21, 2004.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1 through 12:

A. Red ○○ was operating a business device wholesale business under the trade name of ○○ Electronic. The fact of purchase, etc. of non-data was discovered during the period from January 1, 199 to December 31, 199, and was subject to tax investigation conducted by employees of ○○ Tax Office on April 22, 2004, and around June 2004 and July 2004, he was notified to pay the value-added tax and global income tax (the date on which the tax liability was established is June 30, 199 or December 31, 199).

B. On April 23, 2004, Red○○ donated the real estate (LL) recorded in the [Attachment List (hereinafter “instant real estate”) that is its sole property to Defendant Kim○○, the wife on April 23, 2004, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant Kim○○ as of April 23, 2004, which was received on April 23, 2004, and on May 21, 2004, Defendant Kim○ concluded a mortgage contract with Defendant Red○, which was a Sindon on May 21, 2004, and completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 150 million as of May 21, 2004.

2. Determination

A. Establishment of obligee's right of revocation

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee's right of revocation may, in principle, arise prior to the act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act was conducted, there was a legal relationship that has already been based on which the claim was established at the time of such fraudulent act, and there was high probability about the establishment of a claim based on such legal relationship in the near future. In reality, in the near future, the possibility of realizing it in the near future, and where a claim has been created in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation. As seen earlier, although there was a situation where the amount of the Plaintiff's tax claim against Defendant Hong○ at the time of donation to Hong○○, in the near future, was not specified in detail, the legal relationship that forms the basis for establishing the tax claim was already established, it shall be deemed that the donation of the real estate of this case, which is the only property of this case, would be a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is the beneficiary, and further, it is presumed that a gift or a mortgage

Therefore, the gift agreement concluded between Hong○ and Defendant Kim○ and the mortgage agreement concluded between Defendant Kim○ and Defendant Hong○○ should be revoked in entirety as a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, a creditor. As such, Defendant Kim○○ is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer as indicated in the text, and Defendant Hong○ is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer as indicated in the text.

B. Determination on Defendant Red○○’s defense

As to this, Defendant Red○○ had a claim amounting to KRW 150 million on April 30, 200, on the ground that he borrowed KRW 55 million from Defendant Red○, as the purchase price for an apartment, in the process of acquiring ○○○ computers, which is an enterprise operated by Hong○○○, a husband of Defendant Hong○○, and Hong○○○○○, a Hong○○ Company, on 1996. In that context, on May 25, 1995, Red○○ was liable for a debt amounting to KRW 80 million with the acquisition price. Defendant Red○○○, on the ground that he borrowed KRW 55 million from Defendant Hong○, as the purchase price for an apartment, around April 30, 200, he had a claim amounting to KRW 150 million with respect to Hong○○, a property of this case on the ground of Hong○○○○○, which was a gift to Defendant Kim○, the wife of this case’s real property on the ground of this claim, and did not know that Defendant○○ had no knowledge of tax liability.

According to Defendant Red○○○’s assertion that Defendant Hong○○○ and Defendant Hong○○ had a claim amounting to about 15 million won against Hong○○○ in 1995 and 1996, but did not take measures to preserve the claim for a long period of time on or around April 22, 2004, when Hong○ received the instant real estate as collateral on or around May 21, 2004, when considering the following as a whole: (a) the statement in subparagraphs 2 through 11 and the testimony of Defendant Hong○○○○ was insufficient to recognize that Defendant Hong○○ had no intention at the time of completing the establishment registration of a mortgage on the instant real estate; and (b) there was no other evidence to acknowledge that there was no intention at the time of completing the establishment registration of a mortgage on the instant real estate. Therefore, Defendant Hong○○’s defense was without merit.

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.