행정처분의 당연무효와 명백한 하자[국승]
Forced invalidity and apparent defect of an administrative disposition
In order to make an administrative disposition null and void, as well as the illegality of the disposition, and the defect is important and apparent, and the apparent defect here means that it is objectively apparent that it is the defect in the administrative disposition itself.
2013 Ghana 154566 Revocation of Fraudulent Act
-Appellee
○○○ Kim1
-Appellant
Korea
May 14, 2014
1. As to ○○○-gu ○○-dong 590-14 50 square meters, Cheongju-si:
A. The real estate sales contract concluded on April 1, 2009 between Defendant KimA and KimB shall be revoked.
B. Defendant KimA shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on April 2, 2009 by the Cheongju District Court No. 36642.
2. With respect to ○○○○○, ○○○, ○○, 205-1 large 661 square meters:
A. The real estate sales contract concluded on April 6, 2009 between Defendant NewS and KimB is revoked.
B. Defendant NewS shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed by the Cheongju District Court No. 37959 on April 6, 2009 to KimB.
3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.
The same shall apply to the order.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. KimB shall pay the tax between September 30, 200 and August 31, 2008, as shown in the separate sheet No. 1.
Total amount of 160,788,320 won (=value-added tax of 3,470 won for the year 200 + KRW 1,123,240 for the transfer income tax of 202 + KRW 4,531,730 for the transfer income tax of 2003 + KRW 86,507,960 for the transfer income tax of 2005 + KRW 68,621,920 for the transfer income tax of 208; hereinafter “instant tax claim”).
(b) KimB: ○○-dong, ○○-dong, 590-14 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “○○-dong real estate”);
The registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of ○○dong") was completed on April 2, 2009 by reason of the transaction on April 1, 2009 to Defendant KimA, his father-A, who is his father, on April 2, 2009.
다. 김BB은 충북 청원군 ○○읍 ○○리 205-2 대 661㎡(이하 '○○리 부동산'이라 한다)에 관하여 동서(同壻)인 피고 신SS에게 2009. 4. 6.자 매매를 원인으로 2009. 4.6. 청주지방법원 접수 제37959호로 소유권이전등기(이하 '○○리 등기'라 한다)를 마쳐주었다.
D. At the time of the completion of each of the above registration of ownership transfer, KimB, as shown in the separate sheet No. 2, was in excess of the positive property.
Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 5, and Gap evidence 5
6-1, 2, and 7 of evidence Nos. 6-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. As to the defenses prior to the merits of the Defendant NewS
A. Defendant NewS’s assertion
The Plaintiff is simultaneously registered on September 29, 201 and April 18, 2012, which was after April 6, 2009, when the registration of ○○ was completed.
In the meantime, KimB conducted an investigation into default and write-off of deficits. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that at the time of the above disposal of deficits, KimB sold ○○○ Real Estate to Defendant NewS and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and that such an act was aware of the fraudulent act. Ultimately, the lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act against Defendant NewS is unlawful as it was filed on July 10, 2013, which was one year after the date of becoming aware of the fraudulent act as above.
B. Determination
(1) In the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation, “the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation” means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while knowing that the obligee would prejudice the obligee. This is not sufficient to simply recognize the fact that the obligor conducted a disposal of the property, and it is also required to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that the obligor had an intent to deceive the obligor. Meanwhile, the burden of proving the lapse of the limitation period lies in the party to the lawsuit seeking revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102, Mar. 26, 2009).
B. The reasoning of the claim by the Defendant NewS is that: (a) the Plaintiff was unable to fully satisfy the Plaintiff’s claims due to the sales contract and the transfer of ownership between KimB and the Defendant NewS on or before July 10, 2012, which was one year prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit; and (b) it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was aware of the intention to harm KimB. The prior defense by the Defendant NewS is without merit.
3. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. As to the establishment of fraudulent act
According to the above facts, KimB completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to each of the instant real estate in excess of the debt, so each sales contract between KimB and the Defendants on each of the instant real estate becomes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, the creditor. The Defendants’ intention of deliberation is presumed also.
B. As to Defendant KimA’s assertion
(1) Defendant KimA’s assertion
㈎ 아버지인 김BB이 사업상 곤란에 처하자 2008. 6. 3. 충북대학병원에서 대출을 받아 어머니 김수자 명의로 입금하고 ○○동 부동산에 관하여 2008. 7. 4. 근저당권설 정등기를 하였다가, 2009. 4. 1. 그 근저당설정등기를 말소하고, 김BB 사업이 위기에처하자 돈을 돌려받지 못할 가능성 있어 매수한 것이다.
㈏ 이 사건 조세채권은 잘못 부과된 조세채권이다.
Shed Judgment
㈎ 피고 김AA가 주장하는 ○○동 부동산의 매수경위에 의하더라도 피고 김AA는 ○○동 부동산에 관한 자신 명의의 소유권이전등기를 마칠 당시 김BB이 채무 초과상태에 있었음을 알았다고 보여진다. 피고 김AA가 주장하는 바와 같이 피고 김AA가 김BB에게 ○○동 부동산의 매매대금을 지급하고 이를 매수한 것이라고 하여도 사정이 위와 같다면 피고 김AA가 선의였다고 볼 수는 없다.
㈏ 피고 김AA는 원고의 김BB에 대한 이 사건 조세채권은 잘못된 과세처분에 근거한 것으로 무효라는 취지의 주장을 하나, 과세처분이 당연무효라고 볼 수 없는 한 과세처분에 취소할 수 있는 위법사유가 있다 하더라도 그 행정처분은 행정행위의 공정력 또는 집행력에 의하여 그것이 적법하게 취소되기 전까지는 유효하다 할 것이므로,
In civil proceedings, the validity of such taxation disposition cannot be denied (Supreme Court Decision 99 delivered on August 20, 199).
C. In addition, for the purpose of making an administrative disposition void as a matter of course, the disposition is unlawful.
(2) If the defect is important and apparent, it is obvious that the defect is
It refers to a clear and objective presentation of the defect in the division itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da26690, Oct. 22, 1991). However, the assertion by Defendant KimA alone is the tax of this case.
No reason exists to invalidate the imposition of the tax, and the imposition of the tax was lawfully revoked.
Since there is no evidence to prove that the above disposition is valid, it cannot be denied the validity of the above disposition in this case. Defendant KimA’s above assertion is without merit.
C. As to the assertion of Defendant NewS
(1) Defendant NewS’s assertion
㈎ ○○리 등기는 ○○리 부동산에 관한 피고 신SS과 김BB 사이의 2004. 10.30.자 매매예약을 원인으로 하여 청주지방법원 2004. 11. 23. 접수 제55531호로 마쳐진 소유권이전청구권가등기에 기한 본등기이다.
㈏ 이와 같이 가등기에 기한 본등기가 마쳐진 경우에는 가등기 원인일을 기준으로 하여 사해행위여부를 판단하여야 한다.
㈐ 한편 위 가등기의 원인이 된 매매예약일인 2004. 10. 30.을 기준으로 보면 김BB의 조세체납액은 5,658,000원에 불과할 뿐 아니라 위 체납된 조세에 관한 국세징수권은 2009. 5. 30. 시효소멸되었다.
㈑ 따라서 원고의 피고 신SS에 대한 이 사건 사해행위취소 소송은 그 피보전채권이 존재하지 않거나, 사해행위가 성립되지 않으므로 기각되어야 한다.
Shed Judgment
㈎ 갑 제2호증의 기재에 의하면 피고 신SS이 주장하는 바와 같은 소유권이전청구 권가등기가 마쳐진 사실이 인정되나, 또 위 가등기는 2009. 4. 6. 해제를 원인으로 말소되었고 ○○리 등기는 위 가등기에 기한 본등기가 아니라 별개의 2009. 4. 6.자 매매계약을 원인으로 마쳐진 사실도 인정된다.
㈏ 가등기권자가 가등기에 기한 본등기의 절차에 의하지 아니하고 별도의 소유권이전등기를 경료받은 경우에 있어서는, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 가등기권자가 재차 가등기에 기한 본등기를 청구할 수 있는 것이므로 그 별도의 소유권이전등기를 가등기에 기한 본등기와 동일하게 볼 수는 없다(대법원 2002. 7. 26. 선고 2001다73138, 73145판결 참조).
㈐ 따라서 ○○리 등기를 위 가등기에 기한 본등기와 동일하게 볼 수는 없는 것이므로, 이와 다른 전제에 선 피고 신SS의 위 주장은 더 나아가 살펴 볼 필요 없이 이유 없다.
D. As to the claim for restitution
According to the above facts, each sales contract between KimB and the Defendants should be revoked by fraudulent act. Accordingly, the restoration to the original state to KimB, Defendant KimA is obligated to implement the registration procedure of ○○ Dong, and Defendant NewS is obligated to implement the registration procedure of ○○ Ri, respectively.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be accepted for all reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.