1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

D 150,000,000 won on February 25, 2010 between D and Defendant A.

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where "No. 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance" "No. 2010, Apr. 1, 2010," and "G" in the 13th sentence "C" are "C", and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The summary is that the Plaintiff is a tax creditor with respect to D, and D, while the Defendants exceeded its obligation, has contributed to the Defendant A with a total of KRW 150 million on February 25, 2010, KRW 20 million on April 7, 2010, KRW 60 million on April 21, 2010, and KRW 8 million on April 7, 2010, to the Defendant B and C with a total of KRW 8 million on April 7, 2010, each gift constitutes a fraudulent act and thus the said gift shall be revoked. As long as it is impossible to return the original gift as the Defendants used and consumed the donated money, the Defendants, a beneficiary, shall pay the said money to the Plaintiff as compensation for damages.

Judgment

Income tax on the transfer margin of assets under preservation is a tax on preliminary return and payment, and the liability for payment is abstractly established on the last day of the month (the month to which the date of the transfer of assets belongs) in which the amount that serves as the tax base occurs as the interpretation of Article 21(2)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2519, Oct. 13, 1989). D had already established the instant tax claim on June 30, 209, which is the last day of the month to which June 25, 2009 belongs, on which the date of completing the registration of transfer of ownership of the instant house belongs, and thus, the instant tax claim was established prior to the instant payment act

As long as the taxation is not considered to be null and void as a matter of course, there is an illegal reason to revoke the taxation.

Even if the administrative disposition is valid until it is legally cancelled by the fairness or executory power of the administrative act.

Therefore, the validity of the taxation disposition cannot be denied in the civil procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da20179, Aug. 20, 199).