a debtor has donated his sole real property to him, then such gift constitutes a fraudulent act.

A contract of donation in which a debtor has transferred real estate which is his sole property to another person without compensation constitutes a fraudulent act and thus should be cancelled, and the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership to the debtor.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

Suwon District Court 2018Kadan52182 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

○ ○

oly, 2019.14

.03.28

1. The contract of donation concluded on August 24, 2016 between the defendant and the same person as to the real estate stated in the separate list shall be revoked.

2. The Defendant shall comply with the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed in accordance with No. 195, Aug. 26, 2016, receipt****** with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the same person.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 9, 2017, the head of a tax office under the Plaintiff’s control issued a notice of the payment of value-added tax of KRW 66,216,290 to ○○○, Inc., and issued a notice of payment of value-added tax of KRW 39,267,850, which was notified to the said company after designating the oligopolistic shareholder of the said company as the secondary taxpayer. The amount of national taxes in arrears as of May 8, 2018 of the same provision is as indicated below, as follows.

Table 1: The amount of delinquent national taxes as of May 8, 2018

B. On August 24, 2016, the same kind of the same connection concluded a donation contract (hereinafter referred to as "the gift contract of this case") with the Defendant for the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "real estate of this case") with him/her/her/her/her/her/her/her/her/her person related to the punishment, and on August 26, 2016, the head of Suwon District Court filed an application for the registration of ownership transfer under***** (hereinafter referred to as "registration of this case").

C. On the other hand, at the time of August 24, 2016, the asset status of the same same subject to the application of this case was as indicated below, and was omitted in excess of the debt under the instant donation contract.

whether the debt of the same kind is exceeded at the time of the fraudulent act

Classification

Types

Details

The appraised value (won)

(Evaluation Criteria: Individual Housing Price)

Jinay

Active Property

Single houses

Gyeonggi-do** Si****,***

265,000,000

'Real Estate of this case'

Socs (1)

265,000,000

Petty Property

Tax Liabilities

National taxes

38,120,410

A No. 1

Small System (B)

38,120,410

Net assets at the time of fraudulent act (==)

26,879,590

Fraudulent Act (No.4)

Single houses

265,000,000

Excess of Debt (III-No.4)

38,120,410

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff's claim against the same kind of reference is the preserved claim of the creditor's right of revocation, and the contract of donation of this case where the real estate of this case, which is the only real estate of this same kind of reference, is a fraudulent act against the creditor of this same kind of reference, and as long as it is presumed that the intention of the damage of the same same kind of reference is presumed, and that the defendant's bad faith as the beneficiary can be recognized.

In this regard, the defendant asserts to the effect that he is the bona fide person, since he did not know whether the same relation was liable to the plaintiff for national tax liability.

An obligor’s act of transferring real estate, which is its sole property, to another person without compensation, constitutes a fraudulent act against a creditor, barring any special circumstances, and thus, the obligor’s intent to cause harm is presumed and the burden of proof as to the fact that the transferor did not maliciously exist is the beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001). However, inasmuch as there is no evidence supporting the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’

Therefore, the gift contract of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of this case with respect to the real estate of this case to be restored to its original state.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

section 3.

Number of judges;