채무자의 증여행위가 사해행위에 해당하는지 여부[국승]
Whether the debtor's gift constitutes a fraudulent act
Since the only property of the debtor was donated to the defendant to the defendant, the above gift contract constitutes a fraudulent act as it causes the shortage of common security of the debtor's general creditors.
Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration
2014 Ghana 105370 Revocation of Fraudulent Act
Korea
OO
November 19, 2014
December 3, 2014
1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. Revocation of a gift contract concluded on December 17, 2012 between the Defendant and Nonparty Kim ○○, and:
B. On December 17, 2012, the Defendant implemented each procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed by the receipt No. 83768 on December 17, 2012, to Nonparty ○○○○ court ○○○○○○○
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Cheong-gu Office
The same shall apply to the order.
1. Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of claim
According to the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1, 2, and 4-1 to 3-3, 5, and 6, the facts of the reasons for the claim shall be acknowledged.
According to the above facts, Kim○-○, the sole property on December 17, 2012, was donated to the Defendant on the attached list, which was the only property on December 17, 2012, resulting in an excess of the obligation. Therefore, the agreement on the donation of December 17, 2012 between Kim○ and the Defendant on each real property listed in the attached list between Kim○-○ and the Defendant, which caused the lack of common security of the general creditors against Kim○-○, thereby constituting a fraudulent act.
Therefore, the above contract of gift as of December 17, 2012 must be revoked, and the defendant is obligated to implement each procedure of cancellation registration of transfer of ownership completed as of December 17, 2012 by the ○○ District Court ○○○○ registry office of the registration office of the transfer of ownership completed as of December 17, 2012.
2. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion
The defendant asserts that the disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 170,606,080 on May 1, 2013 against the plaintiff Kim ○, who asserted by the plaintiff as the preserved claim for revocation of the fraudulent act of this case (hereinafter "the disposition of this case") is unlawful, and thus, the claim of this case should be dismissed because there is no preserved claim.
However, even if there is an illegal ground for revoking a taxation disposition, unless the taxation disposition is deemed null and void as a matter of course, such taxation disposition is valid until it is lawfully revoked by the fairness of the administrative act or the executory power, so it cannot be denied the validity of the above taxation disposition in the civil procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da20179, Aug. 20, 199). Unless there is any assertion or proof as to the invalidity of the pertinent taxation disposition, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
3. Conclusion
The plaintiff's claim is justified.