사해행위인지 여부[국승]
Whether it is a fraudulent act
It is an act of reducing the creditor's joint security to change real estate into money which is the only property of the debtor's own, which is an act of reducing the creditor's joint security, and barring any special circumstances.
Article 406 of the Civil Code / [Right of Revocation]
1. The purchase and sale contract on October 2, 2005 between the defendant and ○○○ is revoked.
2. The defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by the Incheon District Court No. 118456, Nov. 1, 2005, with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.
3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
As set forth in the text.
In full view of the facts without dispute and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the plaintiff has value-added tax claims of 129,117,320 won against ○○○ as of June 30, 2005, ○○○○ entered in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") with the defendant who is South Dong-dong around October 2, 2005 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant on November 1, 2005. The ○○○ did not have any specific property at the time of the conclusion of the above sales contract, and there is no counter-proof evidence. It is an act of reducing the creditor's joint security to change the real property of this case, which is the only property of this case, to be consumed in money, and barring any special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to undertake the registration of fraudulent act, which is a creditor, as the order of restitution, and thus, is presumed to have been cancelled.
In regard to this, the defendant did not know that ○○○ was liable for tax liability to the plaintiff, and there was no intention to do so. Thus, the defendant's defense is insufficient to recognize it only by the statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.