체납자가 상속분을 포기하는 상속재산분할은 사해행위에 해당함[국승]
Seoul Southern District Court-2017-J-227695 ( October 20, 2018)
Division of inherited property for which a delinquent taxpayer waives his/her share of inheritance constitutes fraudulent act
In the event that a delinquent taxpayer entered into an agreement on division of inherited property that renounces his/her share of inheritance in excess of his/her liability, such agreement constitutes a fraudulent act, and the defendants who were aware of the above circumstances are presumed
2018Na5451 Revocation of Fraudulent Act
Korea
AAA 2
Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2017Gadan227695
July 19, 2018
October 11, 2018
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
1. Purport of claim
A. In the agreement between the Defendants and DD on division of inherited property concluded on June 8, 2016, the part relating to Defendant BB-75/2700 shares among each of the real property listed in subparagraph 1, 2, 3, and 5 of attached Table 1 of the judgment of the first instance, and the real property listed in paragraph 4 of the same Table, among the real property listed in paragraph 4 of the same Table, is revoked.
B. DD. In relation to each of the real estates listed in Section 1, Section 2, Section 3, and Section 5 of Schedule 1 of the Court of First Instance, Defendant AA shall implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for each of the real estates listed in Section 4 of the same Schedule, with respect to shares of 72.75/2700 of the real estates listed in Section 4 of the same Schedule, Defendant AA and CCC shall implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for each of the real estates listed in Section 4 of the same Schedule.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the part of the first instance court’s first instance judgment from No. 4, No. 13 to No. 4, and the part of the last instance judgment, except for the remaining parts, are the same as the reasons for the first instance judgment; and (b) therefore, (c) the same is cited in accordance with the main sentence
2. The part to be mard;
Comprehensively taking account of the witness evidence Nos. 3-1, 6-2, 15-2, and 18-5 of the evidence No. 18-5 of the evidence No. 3-2, EE established a collateral security right of 00 won on October 12, 201 with a maximum debt amount of 00 won on the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 1(5) and remitted 000 won to the account under the name of DDA’s name on October 13, 2011 with a loan of 00 won from an OO bank. The above loans were to be repaid as part of 00 won out of the above real estate borrowed from ODA bank, and the remaining amount of 00 won out of the loans were to be remitted to the account of Defendant No. 20-1, 2012, and there was no evidence to acknowledge the debtor’s transfer of real estate to the account of Defendant No. 20-1, 2014.
3. Conclusion
The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed as they are without merit.
It is so decided as per Disposition.