(영문) 서울고등법원 2012. 03. 14. 선고 2011나70031 판결제출한 증거만으로는 채무자가 수익자와 통모하여 조세채권자를 해할 의사가 있었다고 보기 어려움[국패]
Seoul Central District Court 201Ka28347 ( October 16, 2011)
It is difficult to see that the debtor had an intent to harm the taxation right holder in collusion with the beneficiary.
(1) In order to be recognized as a fraudulent act, it shall be proved that there are special circumstances, such as proving the fact that the act of paying money constitutes a gift, or intent to harm creditors only if it falls under satisfaction of claims. The burden of proof is on the part of claiming a fraudulent act. However, it is difficult to deem that the evidence submitted by the tax authorities alone had the intent to harm the tax payer in collusion with the beneficiary.
2011Na70031 Revocation, etc. of Fraudulent Act
Korea
AAA
Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Gahap28347 Decided August 16, 2011
February 29, 2012
March 14, 2012
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The contract for each gift between the defendant and the non-party KimA shall be revoked, and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive to the day when the plaintiff is fully repaid, and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from the day when the judgment of this case is final and conclusive to the day when the plaintiff is fully repaid.
under payment.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows: from the last 4th of the judgment of the court of first instance on December 8, 2003, "from the beginning of December 8, 2003", the entry of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is cited in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Conclusion
Then, the plaintiff's claim in this case must be dismissed due to its reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed due to its reason. It is so decided as per Disposition.