preliminary registration of the sole real estate in the course of postponement of the tax investigation constitutes a fraudulent act.

Unless there are special circumstances, it constitutes a fraudulent act committed with the knowledge that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, a creditor, by entering into a pre-sale agreement and making a provisional registration in the name of the Defendant on each real estate of this case, which is one of the only real estate, under a condition that tax liability

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

1. On February 28, 2006, the trade reservation signed on February 28, 2006 between the Defendant and the ○○○○○○○ Company shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall execute the procedure for the cancellation of the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer, which was completed on March 2, 2006 by the court No. 6603, with respect to each of the above immovables, to ○○○○, Inc.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1.Basics

"가. 주식회사 ○○○○ (이하 ○○○○' 이라 한다)은 1995. 6. 1.부터 음료 도매 · 제조업을 영위하던 회사인바, 원고 산하 ○○세무서장은 2005. 11. 1.경 〇〇양행에게 조사기간을 2005. 11. 10.부터 2005. 11. 23.까지로 하여 '법인세 등 통합조사'를 위한 세무조사 사전통지를 하였다.",나. 이에 ○○양행은 2005. 11. 7.경 ○○세무서장에게 세무조사 연기신청을 하였고 ○○세무서장은 2005. 11. 11.경 ○○○○에게 세무조사시기를 2006. 3. 1. 이후로 변경한다는 취지를 통지하였다.

C. After that, the head of the ○○ Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to ○○○ from April 10, 2006 to May 15, 2006, and around that time, imposed a tax amount of KRW 187,14,180 in total as follows. The year to which each of the above taxes belongs, the date on which the tax liability is established, the date on which the tax liability is due, the deadline for payment, etc. are indicated as follows.

(1) Around July 13, 2006, the amount of KRW 72,155,230 (attached Form 1) collected from source of wage and salary income tax due to a disposition for recognition of 242,750,750 won on the title of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s transfer on or after July 13, 2006 (attached Table 1).

(2) Notice of payment of the unpaid amount of KRW 1,303,550 after filing a voluntary report of the corporate tax for the year 2005 (attached Form 2)

(3) Notice of 2,950,470 of the corporate tax for the year 2005 (attached Form 3)

(4) Payment notice of value-added tax amounting to KRW 895,380 (Attached Nos. 4 from January 1, 2006 to March 31, 2006) and KRW 885,940 (Attached Nos. 6 from April 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006 for the taxable period) that was not paid after the first return of 2006

(5) Notice of the decision of correction of KRW 108,953,610 of value-added tax for two years 2005 (Attached Nos. 5)

D. At around March 2, 2006, ○○○○, among them, made a provisional registration (hereinafter referred to as “the provisional registration of this case”) on the order on February 28, 2006, for each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each real estate of this case”) which was the only real estate of ○○○○○○○ as of March 2, 2006, based on the shareholders (30% of shares) and the name of the auditor as of February 28, 2006, for which the provisional registration was made (hereinafter referred to as “the provisional registration of this case”).

In addition to attached evidence Nos. 1, 1-2, 3-1-3, 5-1-8, 6-1-3, 7-14, 15-1-4, 16-18-2, 1-7, 13, and 16-16-2, 1-7, 13-16-2, 13-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-5, 15-1-4, 16-18, 1-7, 1-7, 13-2, and 16-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the Plaintiff’s respective tax claims were already established at the time of the promise to sell and purchase this case, or at least the legal relations which form the basis of its establishment were formed, and the claim was actually established in the near future, it constitutes a fraudulent act committed by the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances, by knowing that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, a creditor, who is the sole real estate, under the condition that ○○○○ was responsible for tax liability or charge for the above tax liability and provisional registration was made in the name of the Defendant. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da12004, July 9, 2004).

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, since ○○○○○’s tax amount was 26,943,080 won in total for four years from 202 to 4 years, ○○○○ did not have any intention of deception at the time of the promise to sell and purchase of the instant case, the instant promise to sell and purchase was a true contract made with the Defendant, or was a substitute payment for resolving the company’s debt amounting to 98,000,000 won in substance

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the debtor's act of selling real estate, which is one of his sole property, and changing it into money easily for consumption, is presumed to be a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring any special circumstance, and the debtor's act of offering real estate, which is the only property of the creditor, to any one of the creditors, as payment in kind, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the other creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da3262, Sept. 29, 200). In particular, in this case, ○○○ received prior notice of tax investigation from the head of ○○ Tax Office and then requested a postponement of tax investigation from the head of ○○ Tax Office on March 1, 2006, and then received notice of postponement of tax investigation from the head of ○○ Tax Office on March 1, 2006, and then concluded a pre-contract between the principal shareholder and the auditor and the defendant, and thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

C. Accordingly, the instant provisional registration between the Defendant and ○○○○ is revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the instant provisional registration to ○○○○○.

3. Conclusion

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

○○○○ Head Company’s Default

No.

Items of Taxation

Reversion Year

Date of establishment of tax liability

Deadline for payment

Notice Amount

Jinay

1

ABL

205

July 13, 2006

September 30, 2006

72,155,230 won

2

Corporate Tax

205

December 31, 2005

May 31, 2006

1,303,550 won

3

Corporate Tax

205

December 31, 2005

July 31, 2006

2,950,470 won

4

Value-added Tax

1, 2006

March 31, 2006

June 30, 2006

895,380 won

5

Value-added Tax

2, 2005

December 31, 2005

July 31, 2006

108,953,610 won

6

Value-added Tax

1, 2006

June 30, 2006

September 30, 2006

85,940 won

Total

187,144,180 won

List of Real Estate

1. Factory site ○○○-dong ○○-○, 6562m2.3m2

2. A 1159.2m2m2 at a single-story factory on the ground steel framed;

Mabrobal slocks, single-storys, and lodging rooms;

Office 60.85С

A lodging room 28.65 square meters;

The above ground No. 3 Dong

The roof of the knife knife board shall be 495 square meters at a single-story factory.

[Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74003 (No. 18, 2008)]

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The pre-sale agreement entered into on February 28, 2006 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and ○○○○○, a stock company, shall be revoked. The Defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation of the provisional registration of the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership, which was completed on March 2, 2006 by the receipt of No. 6603 of this Court

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons stated by the court concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the entry of No. 17 in the evidence No. 17 and the rejection of part of the testimony of the witness Lee Jong-○, who was the defendant, at the time of the promise to sell and purchase each real estate listed in the separate sheet between ○○○ and the defendant, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet between ○○○○ and the defendant, and there was no intention to ○○○○ at the time of promise to sell and purchase, and such promise does not constitute a fraudulent act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.