사해행위 취소[국승]
Revocation of Fraudulent Act
The only act of donation of real estate to a person with a special relationship during the tax investigation constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that such act constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the creditor, and the defendant also constitutes a fraudulent act.
Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation
1. The contract of donation concluded on December 20, 2005 between the non-party Kim ○○ and the defendant with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.
2. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer, which was completed on January 13, 2006 by the receipt No. 869 on January 13, 2006, on the real estate mentioned in the above paragraph 1.
3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and
2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);
Grounds for Claim
1. Relevant statutes;
The provisions of Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act (referred to as "the Act specified by Act No. 6805 of Dec. 31, 2002") may apply mutatis mutandis to the court for the revocation of fraudulent act in case where the defaulted taxpayer performs a legal act for the purpose of property right to be exempted from the collection of national taxes in executing the disposition on default."
2. Formation of tax claims;
As of October 29, 2004, the head of ○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office stated the omission of return of capital gains tax amounting to KRW 164,438,752 through the on-site investigation of capital gains tax on May 31, 2005 and did not pay capital gains tax amounting to KRW 68,351,824 as of January 31, 2006.
3. Fraudulent act;
Nonparty 1, 2004, upon recognizing that the omission of the return of capital gains tax was notified due to the on-site investigation of ○○○ Tax Office on October 29, 2005, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, during the investigation process, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation as stipulated in the attached Table No. 869, which was the only property of Nonparty 1 Kim○○, (hereinafter “instant property”).
4. The intention of an injury.
A. The intention of the non-party Kim ○-○
On October 29, 004, the non-party ○○, a taxpayer, was aware in advance that the income tax on the omission of a report on capital gains in the real transaction of the real estate on the spot as of May 31, 2005, after the transfer of 083-6 square meters in ○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, 1083-6 square meters on October 31, 2005, the transfer income tax on the actual transaction report on May 31, 2005, the non-party ○○, a taxpayer, was a donation to the defendant, who is a related party. Thus, the non-party ○○, a taxpayer, was aware of the fact that he would have harmed the plaintiff as a tax claim at the time of donation to the defendant.
B. Non-party Kim ○-○'s insolvent
Nonparty ○○ was in a bad condition since there was no other property at the time of donation of the instant property to the Defendant.
5. Bad faith of the defendant
The defendant is the children of the Kim ○, and the non-party Kim ○ did not have any other property except the property of this case, so at the time the defendant acquired the property of this case due to the donation of this case, it should be deemed that the defendant knew the fact that this donation was a fraudulent act and the intention of the non-party Kim ○'s death
6. Conclusion;
In light of the above facts, the act of donation to the property of this case constitutes a fraudulent act committed by the non-party Kim ○, knowing that it would prejudice the creditor, and the defendant also knew the fact. Thus, the plaintiff was the plaintiff's claim seeking cancellation of the contract of donation and cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership due to restitution.