이 사건 토지 지분에 관하여 체결한 증여계약이 사해행위에 해당하여 소유권 말소 등기절차를 이행하여야 하는지의 여부[국승]
Suwon District Court Sejong District Court-2015-Ba-41348 ( October 27, 2015)
Whether the gift contract entered into with respect to the instant land share constitutes a fraudulent act and whether the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership is required.
Whether a donation contract concluded with respect to 1/2 shares of the instant land constitutes a fraudulent act, and whether it is necessary to restore the ownership of the instant land to its original state by cancelling the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration.
National Tax Collection Act, Civil Procedure Act
2015Na40859 Revocation of Fraudulent Act
Korea
New AA et al. 1
on January 30, 2016
October 11, 2016
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The Defendants and the non-party 1 revoked the gift agreement concluded on March 25, 2014 with respect to the one-half portion of AA, AA, A, A, A, 908-2, 4,539 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendants implement the procedures for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on April 9, 2014 with respect to the one-half portion of the said real estate, to Non-party 1/2 shares, as the registration of the Suwon District Court’s horizontal Housing Site and the registration of the ownership transfer registration, which was completed on April 9, 2014 by the receipt of
1. Basic facts
A. Claims against the Plaintiff’s newA
1) On June 28, 2013, New AA, which is familiar with the Defendants, did not transfer a parcel of land, 209-3, and one parcel of land, 209-3, and 1, in accordance with the real estate auction procedure, and did not report the transfer income tax.
2) Accordingly, on August 12, 2014, the director of the tax office under the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office notified the NewA of KRW 415,421,90 of the transfer income tax by the due date, and the other above newA does not pay the total of KRW 489,072,060 (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax claim”) in total of three cases (see attached Table 1). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26135, Mar. 13, 2015>
B. The disposition of the instant real estate share by the New AA
On March 25, 2014, New AA entered into a gift agreement with the Defendants, who are Chowon on March 25, 2014, on 1/2 of the instant land, and completed each registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendants as the Head of Suwon District Court No. 18454, Apr. 9, 2014.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion
With respect to the 1/2 share of the instant land, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the future of the newA, and since the newA disposed of it to the Defendants in excess of debt, it shall be restored to its original state as it constitutes a fraudulent act.
B. The defendants' assertion
The Plaintiff’s father, the Plaintiff of the Defendants, purchased the instant land and completed only the ownership transfer registration of 1/2 of them in the name of the newA. The co-ownership does not constitute a property held by the newA, and thus, the gift agreement with the Defendants does not constitute a fraudulent act.
C. Determination
According to the following circumstances: (a) No. 4; (b) No. 5; (c) No. 2; (d) No. 9; and (c) No. 2; (c) No. 9; and (d) No. 2; (c) No. 9; and (d) No. 2; (c) No. 9; and (d) No. 2; (c) No. 9; and (d) No. 2; and (d) No. 3; (c) No. 9; and (d) No. 2; and (d) No. 9; and (d) No. 3; and (d) No. 9; and (d) No. 2; and (d) No. 9; and (e) No. 4; and (e) No. 2; and (e) No. 9; and (e) No. 2; and (e) No. 9; and (e) No. 2; and (e) No. 9; and (e. 1) No. 3) No. 9. 5. 8;
Ultimately, the shares in the name of the newA concerning the instant real estate cannot be deemed as a responsible property of the newA, and the agreement between the newA and the Defendants and the Defendants, the ownership transfer registration of the Defendants was completed in the future. Since the title truster, was made as part of the process to restore the ownership of the instant real estate from the newA, the title truster, to the name of ownership of the 1/2 shares out of the instant real estate, it shall not be deemed as a fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.