Busan District Court Branch 2013Gadan21079 ( October 01, 2014)

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was a high probability that a taxation claim should be established, since there was a tax investigation could not have been predicted.

(1)In the first instance court, there was a tax investigation after 6 months have passed since the contract was concluded and 6 months have passed thereafter, and since 6 months have passed again, the tax investigation was designated as the second taxpayer, it cannot be deemed that there was no ground that it could have anticipated the tax investigation, and that there was no possibility that the tax claim was established in the near future.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2014Na45291 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

The AA

Busan District Court Decision 2013Gadan21079 Decided August 1, 2014

April 10, 2015

May 1, 2015

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 shall be revoked. The contract of donation concluded on October 0, 2012 between the defendant and SeoB concerning the real estate stated in the separate sheet shall be revoked. The defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership completed on October 0, 2012 by the ○○ District Court ○○○ Branch ○○○○ Branch 000 for the real estate listed in the separate sheet to

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.