과세예고통지 전에 재산을 담보로 제공한 경우의 사해의사 유무 판단기준[국패]
Criteria for determining whether there is intention to commit an act in case of offering property as security before notice of taxation.
A notice of taxation is issued after a person operating a game room provides his/her sole property as security, and there is a press article that conducts a tax investigation on a speculative game room at the time of providing security. It cannot be readily concluded that the game room operator's will of harm is not the case.
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
Article 30 (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The contract to establish a collateral security on November 23, 2006 with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and ○○hee shall be revoked. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of cancelling the registration of the establishment of a collateral security on the part of the Seoul Southern District Court's Gangseo-gu District Court's Office of Registry of Registry of 96688 on November 24, 2006 and the registration of the establishment of a collateral security on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.
The plaintiff asserts that the act of offering each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter, each of the real estate in this case) in excess of debt is a fraudulent act by completing the registration of establishment of mortgage to the defendant who is one of the obligees.
Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the facts in dispute, absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and witness's testimony, the right of ○○○ was operated with the trade name "○○-dong 152-O from July 10, 2005 to December 2006, 2006," and the goldcheon-do, which is the tax office having jurisdiction over the above game place, operated the game place, "○○-dong 152-O". The right of 205 and 1060,000 won for 10,000 won for 206 and 106,00,000 won for 206 and 106,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 206,06,000 won for each of the purport of the right of this case.
However, in light of the above facts, it is difficult to find that the debtor, as the debtor, had known the fact that there was an intention to harm the plaintiff, who is the debtor, at the time of signing each of the above mortgage contract with the defendant, and it is difficult to conclude that the debtor, as the debtor, ○○○ was aware that there was an intention to further pay the value-added tax by sending the notice of prior notice of taxation to the debtor, ○○○○, as seen earlier, on November 24, 2006, the next December 22, 2006, when each of the above establishment registration was completed, 2006, since it was difficult for ○○, as the debtor, ○○, to say that there was no intention to further pay the value-added tax amounting to about 110 million won at the time of providing the above security, it is difficult to conclude that the debtor, ○○, as the debtor, had the intention to do so by providing the above security, and thus, there was no further evidence to acknowledge that ○○ had an intention to offer the above news.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.