조세가 부과될 것이라는 사정을 예측하지 못한 선의의 수익자인지 여부[국승]
Whether it is a bona fide beneficiary who has not predicted the circumstances that taxes will be imposed.
In the event that the assignment contract starts from 3 days after the tax investigation and the assignment of a claim is the plaintiff's living together, it seems to have been known that the assignment of a claim would prejudice other creditors by the assignment of a claim contract.
Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act)
1. Each appeal by the Defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
1. Purport of claim
A. The assignment contract concluded on April 12, 2007 between ○○ Drugs Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Drugs”) and the Defendants on each of the claims listed in the separate sheet No. 1 shall be revoked on April 12, 2007, and the Defendants shall give notice that each of the above contracts was revoked to Madon (19. October 9, 1957; ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○).
B. As to the claim for the amount of KRW 66,495,540 against ○○○○○ of the ○○ drug between ○○○ and the Defendant’s ○○○○○○, the assignment of claims concluded on May 7, 2007 shall be revoked, and the Defendant Gan○ was notified of the revocation of the said assignment of claims to ○○○○○○, which was concluded on May 7, 2007.
C. As to the claim for the amount of KRW 14,154,00 for the delivery of ○○ drugs between ○○ and the Defendant, the assignment contract concluded on May 21, 2007 shall be revoked, and the order of KRW 14,154,00 for the delivery of ○○ drugs shall be notified that the said assignment contract was revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
1. Basic facts
A. On April 9, 2007, the director of the tax office of the North Korean Gwangju District under the Plaintiff-affiliated District Tax Office commenced a tax investigation on ○○ Drugs, deducted the input tax amount from the processed purchase tax invoice from 2005 to 1, 2007, deducted the input tax amount as entertainment expenses not subject to the input tax deduction, etc., confirmed the tax evasion by means of tax evasion, including omitting sales, and imposed and notified the corporate tax and value-added tax on the ○ drug as shown in the attached Table 2.
B. On July 9, 2008, by the Gwangju District Court 2008 Godan1439, the head of ○○○, a substantial operator of the ○○ drug, was punished for imprisonment for eight months and suspension of execution for two years, based on criminal facts, such as that ○○ drug was subjected to input tax deduction by receiving a tax invoice even if the ○○ drug did not supply goods or services as above.
C. On April 12, 2007, ○ drugs entered into each of the claims listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2007 with respect to the Defendants, on May 7, 2007, 66,495,540 won of the goods price claim against ○○○○ State, and on May 21, 2007, entered into each of the assignment contracts with respect to the assignment of the goods price claim of KRW 14,154,000 against ○○○○○○, and completed the notification to the obligor.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 7, 16, 18, 19-3, 21, 22, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Party’s assertion and issues
The plaintiff asserts that each of the claims assignment contracts of this case constitutes a fraudulent act and seeks the revocation and reinstatement thereof.
As to this, the Defendants asserted that, at the time of each of the instant assignment contracts, the sales claim of ○○ drugs exceeds the small property in KRW 1,424,561,06, and thus, each of the instant assignment contracts does not constitute a fraudulent act, and even if each of the instant assignment contracts constitutes a fraudulent act, the Defendants constitute a bona fide beneficiary who was not entirely predicted that the payments would be levied on ○○ drugs, even if the instant transfer contracts constituted a fraudulent act.
Therefore, the issues of the instant case are ① Whether each of the instant claims assignment contracts constitutes a fraudulent act, ② whether the Defendants are bona fide beneficiaries.
B. Whether each of the instant claims assignment contracts constitutes a fraudulent act
A tax claim is established when the taxpayer is notified of the taxation claim, but if the plaintiff imposed a revised disposition of corporate tax and value-added tax on the ground of unfair deduction of the input tax amount and omission of the sales claim, the plaintiff's taxation claim on the ○○ Drugs has already occurred at the time of the above act, and there was a high probability that the claim was established in the near future, and the claim is realized and the claim has been established. Therefore, the plaintiff's taxation claim becomes the preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation.
According to Gap evidence Nos. 8 and Eul evidence Nos. 6-2 and 7 of the evidence Nos. 5-2 and 7, considering the overall purport of pleadings, since ○○○ drug at the time of the transfer of each of the above claims was transferred with active property, it did not have any other property. Meanwhile, according to the evidence Nos. 883,160,240 (the plaintiff's taxation claim is KRW 1,049,232,320) with respect to the plaintiff's tax liability as shown in the evidence No. 2 list No. 5, the above amount exceeded KRW 1,424,50 (the defendant's tax claim is KRW 1,60,000) and the above amount exceeded KRW 80,60,000,000 were more than KRW 30,000,000,000,000 won were more than KRW 860,000,000,000,000).
C. Whether the Defendants are bona fide beneficiaries
The Defendants had a large amount of claim against ○○○○ Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. from September 18, 2002 to November 28, 2003, such as lending KRW 115,00,00 to ○○○ Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. If they had known that ○○○○○ Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. bear a large amount of other obligations, they did not perform any act such as offering security for the obligations of ○○ Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. under ordinary terms and social norms. In light of the Defendants’ provision of ○○○○○○○○ Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.’s goods price as security, ○○○○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was owned by the Defendants, as well as providing ○○○○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. as security, the Defendants should have known that ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd., owned by the Defendants after the commencement of the instant assignment of obligations. However, it appears that there were no grounds to acknowledge the Defendants’ respective claims as a bona fide agreement.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, each contract for the assignment of claims in this case, which is a fraudulent act, shall be revoked, and the defendants shall be obligated to notify the debtor of the fact of revocation due to its restoration to its original state, so the claim in this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified with this conclusion, and therefore the defendants' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.