Changwon District Court 2013dan72551 ( December 24, 2013)

The mere fact that the other spouse is the source of the purchase fund does not necessarily mean that a real estate title trust existed.

In order to reverse “the presumption of a specific property” under Article 830(1) of the Civil Act, the other spouse shall bear the price for the pertinent real estate and prove that the other spouse acquired such real estate in order to actually own such real estate. As such, the mere fact that the other spouse is the source of the purchase fund does not necessarily mean that the presumption of a non-conditional special property was reversed, and that there was a title trust as to

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2014Na30272 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

oo

Section AA

Changwon District Court Decision 2013Da72551 Decided December 24, 2013

September 18, 2014

October 16, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

With respect to 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet on March 17, 2008 between the defendant and the rightB

Contract for the execution of a contract, and 1/2 of the real estate listed in the attached Table on October 28, 2008, shall be concluded.

Each contract for sale shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the contract for sale to the competentB, and the defendant shall hold 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the

under the title transfer registration that was completed on March 18, 2008 by the Changwon District Court, Kimhae-hae registry office, which was completed on March 18, 2008

The registration procedure for cancellation, the Changwon District Court Kim Maritime Office for the shares of 1/2 of the real estate listed in the attached list

The procedures for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by Law No. 28379 of October 31, 2008 shall be implemented, respectively.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) DuB on February 4, 2008, the land of 000000-000 in Busan, which was owned by it on February 4, 2008

Upon sale in the real estate auction procedure, the transfer income tax was reported on May 31, 2009.

The Plaintiff did not pay taxes. The said transfer income tax on August 10, 2009 to the rightB around August 10, 2009

00,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "instant taxation claim") shall be the due date for payment on August 31, 2009.

The rightB did not pay the notified tax by the due date.

B. The rightB is between the Defendant, the husband, and the real estate listed in the separate sheet on March 17, 2008 (hereinafter “the real estate”).

1/2 of the real estate of this case is the real estate of this case. o District Court

The registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 18, 2008 by the registry office No. 8465, and on October 28, 2008.

A sales contract for one-half portion of the real estate of this case (hereinafter above) and a joint purchase and sale contract for March 17, 2008

o District Court o a registry office on October 2008, 2008

31. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 18, 2008 as the receipt No. 28379 (hereinafter the above "the registration of ownership transfer in this case").

C. At the time of entering into each of the instant sales contracts, the rightB is a particular property other than the instant real estate.

did not own it.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including the paper number), the whole pleadings

purport of this chapter

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

Claim protected by obligee's right of revocation is, in principle, a fraudulent act.

such act was committed before such act was committed, but at the time of such fraudulent act, the

There is a legal relationship which forms the basis of the establishment and is based on such legal relationship in the near future.

There is a high probability of the establishment of a claim and its opening in the nearest future.

In the event that a claim has been created by realization, the claim shall also be subject to the creditor's right of revocation.

The above legal principle also applies to a taxation claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001; 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007). Meanwhile, income tax on the transfer margin of assets is a tax to be paid by preliminary return, and the liability for tax payment is abstract on the last day of the month (the month in which the date of the transfer of assets falls) in which the amount which serves as the tax base under the interpretation of Article 21(2)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes accrues (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2519, Oct. 13, 198). The establishment date of the tax obligation of the instant taxation claim was determined on Feb. 28, 2008, each of the instant sales contract was determined on Mar. 17, 2008; 2002Du5130, Oct. 28, 2008.

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

The debtor sells real estate, which is the only property of the debtor, and alters them into money easily consumed.

act of transferring to another person without compensation shall be done to a creditor unless there is a special reason not to do so.

Since the debtor's intent of deception is presumed to be a fraudulent act, the debtor's intention of deception is presumed to be presumed to be a fraudulent act.

According to the above facts, the burden of proof that the transferee or transferee did not bad faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001) is the beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001), the act of entering into each of the instant sales contract with the defendant with respect to the instant real estate, which is one of his sole property, and completing the registration of ownership transfer, is a fraudulent act in relation to the general creditors of the rightB including the plaintiff, and the rightB was aware that the lack of common security due to each of the instant sales contract would be prejudicial to other creditors, and accordingly, the defendant's bad faith

In this regard, the defendant argued that the real estate of this case was prepared by the defendant, which was the only name of the rightB, and that each of the sales contracts of this case was not a fraudulent act, and that it was not aware that the plaintiff and the creditors were harmed thereby, and therefore, the other spouse must bear the price of the real estate and prove that the other spouse acquired it in order to de facto own the real estate. Thus, the other party simply bears the burden of proving that the other spouse acquired it for the real estate.

The presumption of an unconditional property is reversed solely on the ground that the spouse is the source of the purchase fund.

It is not deemed that there was a title trust on the real estate concerned, but through the relevant evidence.

Comprehensively taking into account all circumstances in which the other spouse actually owns the real estate concerned.

Determination of whether or not the price has been paid individually and specifically for the purpose of title trust

The Defendant’s assertion is insufficient to recognize the above assertion solely on the basis of the statement of No. 206Du8068, Sept. 25, 2008 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du8068, Sept. 25, 2008). However, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(c) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Therefore, each of the instant sales contracts between the Defendant and the rightB shall be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of each of the instant transfer of ownership to the rightB.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is so accepted.

As the conclusion is justified, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The decision shall be rendered as above.