The meaning of “the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause of revocation” in the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation, and, in case where the obligee exercises the obligee’s right of revocation against the legal act of the defaulted taxpayer with the claim preserved, whether the determination shall be made based on the tax official’s awareness in charge of the affairs related to the collection and preservation of the claim, in relation to the starting point of the exclusion period (affirmative in principle)

In the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation, “the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause of revocation” means the date when the obligor becomes aware of the fact that the obligee had committed a fraudulent act while being aware that the obligee would prejudice the obligee. This is insufficient to simply recognize the fact that the obligor conducted a disposal of the property, and further, to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that the obligor had an intent to injure the obligor.

However, when the State exercises its right of revocation against a legal act of a delinquent taxpayer by making a claim preserved for a claim against the State, barring any special circumstance where the State becomes aware of the starting point of the limitation period, it shall be determined on the basis of the tax official’s perception in charge of the duty to collect and preserve tax claims, barring any special circumstance where the State becomes aware of the starting point of the limitation period, and it shall not be determined on the basis of the perception of other public officials in charge of the duty to register and register property disposal of a delinquent taxpayer. Accordingly, when it is recognized that the tax official knew not only the delinquent taxpayer’s disposal of property but also specific fraudulent act and that the delinquent

Article 406(2) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 2007Da63102 decided Mar. 26, 2009 (Gong2009Sang, 547)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 200Hun-Ga416 delivered on August 21, 200

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na2046387 decided October 22, 2015

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. In the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation, “the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation” means the date when the obligor becomes aware of the fact that the obligee had committed a fraudulent act while being aware that it would prejudice the obligee. This is insufficient to simply recognize the fact that the obligor conducted a disposal of the property, and further, to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that the obligor had an intent to deceive the obligor (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102, Mar. 26, 2009).

However, when the State exercises its right of revocation against a legal act of a delinquent taxpayer by making a claim preserved for a claim against the State, barring any special circumstance, whether the State was aware of the grounds for revocation regarding the starting point of the limitation period should be determined based on the tax official’s perception in charge of the duty to collect and preserve tax claims, and should not be determined based on the perception of other public officials in charge of the duty to register and register property disposal of a delinquent taxpayer. Accordingly, when it is recognized that a tax official was aware of the existence of a specific fraudulent act as well as the property disposal act of a delinquent taxpayer and that the delinquent taxpayer had expressed his/her intent to cause revocation at that time, the State

B. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that, on March 15, 2013, a tax official in charge of the collection, preservation, etc. of a tax claim did not know of the transfer of this case until March 15, 2013, in which the instant civil petition was received, and he knew that he/she committed a fraudulent act while being aware that he/she would prejudice the Plaintiff at the expiration of a considerable period for determining the validity of the said civil petition. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case was filed on March 14, 2014 before the lapse of one year from the date of the lawsuit, and did not exceed the exclusion period. In so determining, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the public official of the Korean Intellectual Property Office knew the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act and intent to injure the Plaintiff at the time of the transfer of this case.

C. Examining the foregoing legal doctrine and the record in light of the foregoing, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the limitation period for the obligee’s right of revocation, or by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that it was reasonable to view that the National Tax Service was unaware of the instant transfer before the receipt of the instant civil petition on March 15, 2013.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the principle of pleading or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the revocation of confession, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant transfer agreement constitutes a fraudulent act, and that both the cenz and the Defendant was aware of the fact that the instant contract would prejudice other creditors including the Plaintiff at the time.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the mistake of facts in violation of logical and empirical rules, or contrary to the grounds of the judgment, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of fraudulent act, or the burden of proof

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)