결손처분 무렵에 사해의사가 있었음을 알았다고 보여지므로 소 제기기간을 도과한 부적법한 청구임[국패]
Since it seems that there was a deceased will at the time of the disposition of loss, it is illegal that the period for filing a lawsuit has been elapsed and illegal.
Since tax authorities seem to know the fact that real estate was donated to the taxpayer's wife and that it is difficult to collect capital gains tax at the time of disposal of deficit, it should be deemed that the act of donation constitutes a fraudulent act at this time and that there was an intention of deception. Accordingly, this lawsuit was dismissed for more than one year.
2011Revocation of fraudulent act
Korea
Gangwon A
June 28, 2012
July 19, 2012
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
"1. The contract of donation between the defendant and the non-party B on October 9, 2009 on the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate in this case") between the defendant and the non-party B shall be revoked; 2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final to the day of complete payment.
1. Basic facts
A.B transferred on July 7, 2006 the Jongno-gu Seoul OB 00 land and buildings, and on August 21, 2006, the Jongno-gu Seoul OB 000 land and buildings, and on August 21, 2006, the Seoul Nowon-gu OOB 00 land (the total land of Jongno-gu OOdong 61 land and the land of Jongno-gu 000 land and the land of the Seoul Nowon-do 000 land) was transferred to the Defendant.B. On May 29, 2009, the title transfer income tax was 0.0,000 won, and the title transfer tax was 9.20,00 won, and the title transfer income tax was 0.0,000 won, which was 1.0,000 won and 200,000 won, respectively.
F. On October 20, 2009, the head of the Dongdaemun District Tax Office written off the disposition of deficits on the remainder of 000 won of the principal tax (00 won +00 won +000 won) excluding the total of 000 won (00 won +000 won) out of the principal tax of this case, and the increased additional tax of 00 won among the capital gains tax of this case.
G. The Plaintiff asserted that there was a tax claim of KRW 000 as capital gains tax (the transfer income tax of this case + KRW 000 + Additional 000,000,000 after the loss) against B, and that BB would prejudice the Plaintiff who is the obligee, and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act of this case against the Defendant on July 26, 201, on the ground that B had known that the gift of this case was made by the obligee.
H. The court ordered the Plaintiff to submit to the court the records of the disposition of the transfer income tax in this case, the records of the disposition of the transfer income tax in arrears, the records of the investigation of the disposition of the transfer income, the records of the disposition of the transfer income, the records of the investigation of the transfer income tax, the investigation of the transfer income tax, the investigation report on the use of the transfer income tax, the relevant investigation report on the fraudulent act, DiB inquiry and inquiry inquiry, and the certified copy of the register.
[Grounds for Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 1, evidence 2, evidence 1, 2, and 3, evidence 3, and 4, evidence 5, evidence 6, evidence 1 through 3, and evidence 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Relevant statutes, such as write-off;
The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.
3. Determination
We examine the defendant's main defense of safety.
Article 406(2) of the Civil Code provides that the period for exercising the right of revocation shall be 0.B. Since the period for exercising the right of revocation is 0B, the court should ex officio investigate whether the said period is complied with, and then dismiss the lawsuit for revocation filed after the said period is expired. However, the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for cancellation refers to the date when the obligee becomes aware of the requirements for cancellation, i.e., the date when the obligor became aware of the facts that the obligor would have carried out a fraudulent act, and that the obligor would have carried out a disposal of the property, i.e., the act that would compromise the obligee, and that the legal act would be less than 00, and that it would be difficult to find that the obligor would have carried out a disposal of the property, i.e., e., 00, 000 won and 20,000 won, and that the obligor would be 0,000 won and more than 2,000 won.
4. Conclusion
If so, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is decided as per Disposition.