B. With respect to the above FF’s share of 42/1050, Defendant GG, H, H, J, K,K, and LL with respect to each share of 28/1050; Defendant Z is 12/1050 shares; Defendant XX, and V are able to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for each of 8/1050 shares as to each of 8/1050 shares. The costs of the lawsuit on February 2, 201 are borne by the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

가. 원고 산하 BB세무서장은 2013. 1. 2.과 2013. 12. 9. 및 2014. 5. 7. FF에게 별지 기재 표(다만 2008년도 종합소득세 본세는 1,498,080원을 추심하기 전이므로 16,126,579원)와 같은 내용으로 부가가치세 및 종합소득세를 결정・고지하였고, 2014. 8. 20. 기준 체납세액은 별지 기재 표와 같이 합계 463,433,560원(이하 '이 사건 조세채권'이라 한다)이다. 나. FF는 채무초과상태에서 2012. 11. 1. 조부인 망 CC(이하 '망인'이라 한다)과 주문 제1의 가항 기재 부동산(이하 '이 사건 토지'라고 한다) 중 자신이 소유하고 있던 지분 전부인 2/10 지분에 관하여 증여계약(이하 '이 사건 증여계약'이라 한다)을 체결하고, 2012. 11. 2. 망인에게 위 지분에 관한 소유권이전등기를 마쳐주었다.다. 망인은 2013. 11. 15. 사망하였고, 피고 DD는 21/105, 피고 GG, HH,JJ, KK, LL은 각 14/105, 피고 QQ는 6/105, 피고 WW, EE은 각 4/105의 비율로 망인을 상속하였다. [인정 근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 1부터 6호증의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지

2. Determination

A. Determination as to preserved claims

According to Article 21(1)1 and 7 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, each obligation to pay income tax and value-added tax is naturally established under the law without any separate act of the tax authorities or taxpayers when the taxable period expires. According to Article 5(1) of the Income Tax Act, the taxable period of income tax is from January 1 to December 31, 12. According to Article 5(1)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the taxable period of value-added tax is from January 1 to June 30 in the case of the first period, and from July 1 to December 31, 201 in the case of the second period, from July 2 to December 31, 201 in the case of the second period. Accordingly, the global income tax and value-added tax claim and value-added tax claim from the year 2008 to the year 2011 in the instant taxation claim are already established on November 1, 2012, which is the date of the instant donation contract.

In addition, even though it is required that a claim that can be protected by the creditor's right of revocation has arisen before the act was performed as a matter of principle before the act was conducted, there is a high probability that the claim is established at the time of the fraudulent act, which is the basis of the establishment of the claim in the near future, and where a claim is realized in the near future, the claim that occurred after the fraudulent act may also be the creditor's right of revocation in the near future. According to the above facts established, among the tax claims in this case, the value-added tax claim in 2012 and global income tax claim in 2012 were not terminated at the time of November 1, 2012, which is the date of the donation contract in this case. However, there was a legal relationship which serves as the basis of establishing the tax claim in this case, and the tax claim in this case was established immediately after the commencement of the taxable period, and it was highly probable that the tax claim in this case was established based on the above legal relationship in the near future when the requirements prescribed by the Act were met.

On the other hand, if national taxes are not paid by the due date, the additional dues are the kind of incidental tax imposed in the meaning of interest for arrears on unpaid portion. If national taxes are not paid by the due date without the due date of payment by the due date without the due date of determination by the right of taxation, it naturally occurs pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s tax claim against FF is the entire right of revocation of obligee’s right of revocation.

In cases where a debtor donated his/her own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, such act constitutes a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances, and thus, the instant gift agreement entered into between F and the deceased constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the interests of other creditors. Furthermore, it is reasonable to deem that F and F are sufficiently aware of the occurrence of the instant tax claim, since O and O and O were voluntarily declared the value-added tax and comprehensive income tax during the taxable period from 2008 to 2012, it was reasonable to deem that F andO were fully aware of the occurrence of the instant tax claim, and in particular, since the instant gift agreement entered into with the deceased during the period, and the amount of delinquent taxes in 2012 that

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

1) The defendants' assertion

The Defendants: (a) on November 2, 1996, the deceased claimed that FF, Defendant GG, and H H shares were in a position to acquire the ownership by exercising the right to complete the pre-sale agreement at any time on November 1, 1996 on the part of the land in this case; and (b) on the ground that the deceased was in a position to acquire the ownership of FF shares by exercising the right to complete the pre-sale agreement; (c) on the part of the land in this case, the ownership transfer does not constitute a fraudulent act; and (d) the deceased alleged that he is a bona fide beneficiary (F's intent to do so, but this cannot be accepted as seen in the foregoing paragraph (b)).

① As alleged by the Defendants, solely on the circumstance that the Deceased may acquire ownership by exercising the right to complete purchase and sale reservation on the FF’s share portion of the instant land, it cannot affect the FF’s assessment of liability property. Barring any special circumstance, the gift contract of this case may not interfere with what constitutes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance, in the form of legal relationship between the Deceased and F on the F’s share portion of the instant land (the right to complete purchase and sale reservation applies to the exclusion period of 10 years). Accordingly, the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion is without merit.

② In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary’s bad faith is presumed to have been presumed, and thus, the beneficiary is obligated to prove his/her good faith in order to be exempted from his/her responsibility. Furthermore, evidence, etc. should be supported to acknowledge that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act. Furthermore, only based on the obligor’s unilateral statement or a statement that is merely a third party’s prosecution, etc., the presumption that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act should not be readily concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006; 2009Da60466, Jul. 22, 2010; 2013Da206986, Nov. 28, 2013). In light of such legal principles, the testimony of the witness V alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the presumption of the deceased’s bad faith was subsequent to the fraudulent act.

Therefore, the gift contract of this case must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and restitution following the revocation of a fraudulent act, that is, the Defendants, the heir of the deceased, return FF to FF the registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case, as sought by the Plaintiff, are obliged to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of the recovery of authentic title, as stipulated in Section 1-B of the Disposition No. 1, which corresponds to the ratio of shares in inheritance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da53704, Feb. 25, 2000).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges