Whether it constitutes a fraudulent act

If the delinquent taxpayer has completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name or title of real estate owned only by him, it constitutes a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

1. Between the Defendant and Nonparty ○○○

A. Sales contract concluded on October 30, 2005 with respect to real estate Nos. 1 and 2 in the separate sheet

B. The sales contract concluded on October 26, 2005 for real estate No. 3 listed in the separate sheet

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

2. The defendant against the non-party ○○○

A. The procedure for the cancellation of each registration of transfer of ownership completed on January 25, 2006, ○○ District Court ○○○○ registry office ○○ with respect to real estate Nos. 1 and 2 listed in the separate sheet***;

B. As to real estate No. 3 listed in the separate sheet, each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the cancellation of fraudulent act will be implemented.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition is as follows (However, although the plaintiff is seeking the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure under Section 2.b. of this Disposition on the ground of the restoration of the real name, it will be entitled to seek restitution due to the cancellation of fraudulent act).

1. Basic facts

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") was owned by ○○○. Among them, on October 30, 2005, the sale and purchase of real estate Nos. 1, 2, 1, and 2, on October 30, 2005, received on January 25, 2006 as the cause of registration**** with regard to the real estate No. 3, the sale and purchase on Oct. 26, 2005 was received on Oct. 26, 2005 as the cause of registration **** by head of ○○ District Court ***.

B. Of the instant real property, ○○ District Court received on January 24, 2006 ***** the maximum debt amount of KRW 20 million, the debtor, the debtor, and the mortgagee’s ○○○○○○○, as regards the instant real property.

Documents No. 3-1 to 3, Gap evidence No. 11-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the fraudulent act is constituted;

A. Formation of preserved claims

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, ○○○○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the above buyers completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 29, 2005. As ○○○○○ did not report the transfer income tax base within two months from the end of the month to which the transfer date belongs as prescribed by the Income Tax Act, the head of the tax office under the Plaintiff’s control did not report the transfer income tax base within two months from the end of the month to which the transfer date belongs. On November 17, 2005, the tax base of the transfer income tax was determined as the standard market price and notified the amount of tax to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

B. Whether a fraudulent act was committed

In full view of the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2-2, it is recognized that ○○○○○ had no specific property other than two cars with the market value of 1,790,000 won around October 30, 205, which is the date of the sales contract for the real estate of this case, since ○○○○○○○, Inc., ○○○○○, Inc., ○○○○○, Inc., ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, 00, 00, ○○○, ○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○, ○○○, and ○○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○○, 200, 100, 200, 3-100, 300, 140.

(c) No bona fide beneficiary defense;

Around January 28, 1997, the defendant lent 47 million won to ○○○○○, a sum of 10 million won around October 24, 1997, and 62 million won on March 28, 2005, and 20 million won on May 9, 2005, and 5 million won on May 17, 2005; 3 million won on June 8, 2005; 10 million won on June 24, 2005; 10 million won on June 24, 2005; 10 million won on July 4, 2005; 10 million won on July 1, 2005; 2.7 million won on the above loan to ○○○○○, one million won on one’s own, and one’s own interest on another’s debt.

In full view of the overall purport of pleadings in the statement No. 5-2, No. 4-2, No. 5-3, No. 5-5, No. 2, and No. 7-2, of No. 7-2 among the above loans No. 3, the defendant paid to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 47 million on Jan. 28, 1997, around Oct. 24, 1997, KRW 10 million on Oct. 24, 1997, KRW 5 million on Mar. 28, 2005, and KRW 50 million on May 9, 2005, and the defendant’s assertion that the above loans No. 215 million on May 9, 2005, the defendant’s investment in the future by introducing the loans to ○○○○○○○○○○○○, a real cause for which the defendant would have suffered damages to ○○○○○’s property.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the sales contract concluded on October 30, 2005 and the sales contract concluded on October 26, 2005 with respect to the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 among the real estate of this case between the defendant and ○○○○ shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, respectively. The defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the above transfer of ownership on January 25, 2006 for the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 among the real estate of this case, and the registration procedure for cancellation of the above transfer of ownership on January 25, 2006 for the real estate of this case is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the transfer of ownership on January 3, 200 for the real estate of this case due to restitution due to fraudulent act (the creditor is allowed to seek for cancellation of the registration under the name of the beneficiary by fraudulent act, instead of seeking for cancellation of the registration under the name of the beneficiary, and

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.