사해행위 추정에 대해 명의신탁 부동산의 환원이라는 주장의 당부[국승]
The legitimacy of the assertion that the presumption of fraudulent act shall be returned to the property held in title trust
Since the title trust of real estate was cancelled and the ownership of the instant real estate was transferred, it is argued that the fraudulent act does not exist. Therefore, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize the title trust, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act
1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. Revocation of a gift contract concluded on September 17, 2007 between Mao-Ma and Mao-Mao-Ma;
B. Defendant Kim Jong-Un implemented the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed by No. 108389 on September 21, 2008, for the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership, with the Jung-gu District Court, Namyang-ju registry of the Republic of
C. Defendant U.S.’s U.S. registration procedure will be implemented for cancellation of ownership transfer claim registration, which was completed by the receipt No. 108390 on September 21, 2007 with the U.S. District Court, Namyang-ju registry of the Republic of Korea.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.
The same shall apply to the order.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. When operating a clothing retail business from June 2001 to December 2006, 2006, Masan reported under the method of omitting data on sales at the time of the return of value-added tax. The director of the tax office of the Namyang District Tax Office, under his control, notified the Plaintiff of the payment of taxes, such as the statement in the attached Form of arrears, but Ma○ is currently in arrears.
B. However, on September 17, 2007, after being notified of the payment of taxes as above, the party had entered into a donation contract (hereinafter “the donation contract of this case”) with the defendant Kim Jong-Un, his wife, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 21, 200, as described in the order of the above defendant.
C. On the other hand, on September 21, 2007, Defendant Kim Jong-Un completed the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership, such as the written order on September 17, 2007, on the instant real estate, to Defendant ○○, which is a form of Ma○'s Ma○ on September 21, 207.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination
A. Establishment of fraudulent act
According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the act that YO, a tax delinquent, donated the real estate of this case to Defendant Kim Jong-ok, one of his wife, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is the obligee, barring any special circumstance. In light of the fact that YO’s intent to harm the obligor’s YO as long as it is recognized as the obligor’s intention to harm, the act of donation of the real estate of this case, which is the only property of this case, to the obligee, was directly donated to Defendant Kim Jong-ok, one of his wife, and as such, the Defendants
B. Determination of the defendants' assertion
(1) The Defendants asserted that the title trust should be terminated and that the ownership of the instant real estate should not be a fraudulent act is not a fraudulent act, since Defendant Kim Jong-Un received aid from the pro-Japanese and purchased the instant real estate. Thus, the Defendants asserted that the title trust was transferred and that the ownership of the instant real estate was not a fraudulent act. Therefore, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is the real owner of the instant real estate, and it is insufficient to recognize that the real owner of the instant real estate was the Defendant Kim Il-so, and there is no other evidence recognized otherwise. Therefore,
(2) The Defendant U2Bio purchased the instant real estate from his Defendant Kim Jong-Un on condition that he succeeds to KRW 85 million in the rent of KRW 200 million, and paid KRW 177,000 to Defendant Kim Jong-Un first, and completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer due to the two houses of one household. As such, it is argued to the purport that he is a bona fide purchaser, it is insufficient to recognize the above Defendant’s good faith, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.
(3) Following the Defendant U2S. loan money to Defendant Kim Jong-Un to use the money as the business fund of YY. Accordingly, he borrowed KRW 177,00,00 in order to resolve the temporary business shortage of YY, and completed the above provisional registration. As such, it is considered as the best way to have the ability to repay the debt by providing loans to the debtor in a situation in which it is difficult to continue the business due to the financial shortage, and it is argued to the effect that it does not constitute a fraudulent act, or that he is a bona fide purchaser, by offering the instant real estate as a security. Therefore, the evidence submitted by the above Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge the good faith of the above Defendant’s alleged facts and facts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the gift contract of this case must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and as a result, the defendant Kim Jong-Un is obligated to register the transfer of ownership as a result of restoration to the original state, and as the defendant Kim Jong-sung is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation of the above transfer of ownership as a result, the above transfer of ownership right claim against the defendant Kim Jong-hwan. Thus, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants shall be accepted