The act of making a donation to his/her child of some of the sales price after selling an apartment that is the only property is a fraudulent act.

Since the defendant was aware that the transfer income tax is imposed at the time of selling apartment, which is the only property, the act of donation to the child of some of the sales price after the sale constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors, and the intention of amnesty is sufficiently recognized, unless there are special circumstances.

The contents of the judgment are the same as attachment.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2018 Ghana 89585 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

After selling an apartment, the sum of the sale proceeds from November 10, 2014 to January 20, 2015 after selling the apartment.

An act of donation of KRW 204,00,000 to a defendant who is a child shall, except in extenuating circumstances.

It constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors, and the intent of both A to commit an act is sufficiently recognized.

I would like to say.

Therefore, each of the instant donations between both the twoA and the Defendant was made on September 23, 2018 by the Plaintiff to the twoA.

(1) The tax claim amount of this case shall be revoked within the scope of KRW 137,190,170, and shall be restored as its restitution.

The Defendant’s above KRW 137,190,170 and the date following the final judgment of this case sought by the Plaintiff.

C. There is a duty to pay 5% interest per annum under the Civil Act from the date of full payment to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is accepted.

Korea

YangCC

on October 15, 2019

on October 15, 2019

1. To revoke each donation contract of KRW 50,00,000,000 as of November 10, 2014, concluded between the Defendant and the YangA (as of March 5, 1939), and KRW 2,00,000,000 as of December 26, 2014, and KRW 150,000,000 as of December 30, 2014, and KRW 2,00,00,000 as of January 20, 2015, respectively, to the extent of KRW 137,190,170 as of January 20, 2015.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 137,190,170 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 7, 2014, the twoA sold 50,000,000 units of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Black-dong 10 and △△△△ apartment 000,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) to the twoB, which is one of its own property, in the price of KRW 550,00,00,00, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed to both BB on the ground of this on December 30, 2014.

B. Both A and BA did not report capital gains tax regarding the sale as stated in the above A and the Plaintiff notified each of them of KRW 97,022,850 at the due date for payment on January 15, 2016, and both A and B are in arrears with capital gains tax of KRW 137,190,170 as of September 23, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax claim”). Both A and B were in arrears with capital gains tax of KRW 137,190,170, including the additional dues as of September 23, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax claim”). Both A and B were in arrears with the Defendant, who are the children, and KRW 50,000,000 on November 10, 204; KRW 26,00,000 on December 26, 2014; KRW 150,000,00 on December 30, 200.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

In principle, a claim that may be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation shall be accrued prior to a fraudulent act. However, at the time of a fraudulent act, there is a legal relationship which already serves as the basis of the establishment of a claim in the near future, and there is a high probability that the claim will be established by such legal relationship in the near future, and in fact, where a claim has been created due to its de facto feasibility, the obligee’s right of revocation may be the preserved claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da

In light of this, at the time of selling the apartment of this case to the twoB on November 7, 2014, both A and B had already formed a basic legal relationship with respect to the occurrence of capital gains tax, and there was a high probability of the establishment of a tax claim based on the above legal relationship in the near future. Moreover, the tax claim of this case was established by the Plaintiff’s notification of payment of capital gains tax in fact by the Plaintiff’s notification of payment of capital gains tax. Furthermore, both A and B were the only property of both A and B on November 7, 2014.