Suwon District Court Ansan Branch 2013Kadan106817

Where a judgment on a fraudulent act is stated in a report on the closure of tax investigation, the date of knowing the intention to commit the fraudulent act shall be reported.

In light of the fact that the judgment on the debtor's fraudulent act has been stated in a report prepared at the time of the completion of the tax investigation, the date when the creditor becomes aware of the debtor's intention to commit the

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

2014Na40562 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

SAA

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Na106817 decided October 7, 2014

August 19, 2015

September 16, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The sales contract concluded on October 24, 201 with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and B shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 00,000,000. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day after the date of confirmation of the judgment of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the statement of the first instance court's decision, except for the second instance court's reasoning 2-b.2 (2) (3 2 2 3 2 3 3 2) as follows. Thus, this court's explanation is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in this case, evidence Nos. 7, 10, 11, and 2: (1) ○○ Tax Office started an investigation for imposition of capital gains tax on August 8, 2012 on which BB did not transfer the real estate of this case and closed the investigation on August 27, 2012; (2) around August 16, 2012, the ○○ Tax Office requested the Defendant to submit all documents verifying the actual transaction amount of the sales contract of this case to the Defendant by 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00.

According to the above facts, on August 27, 2012, 2012, which is the date of the conclusion of the above tax investigation, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was aware of the fact that B disposed of the real estate of this case to the defendant in excess of its obligation with the intent to harm general creditors including the plaintiff (other than this, the plaintiff's assertion that the exclusion period should be determined at the time of the completion of examination as to whether it was fraudulent act in ○○○○ under the ○○ regional tax office exclusively in charge of the affairs of revocation of fraudulent act). The plaintiff's assertion that the exclusion period should be determined at the time of the examination as to whether it was fraudulent act in ○○○○○, which is a regional tax office exclusively in charge of the affairs of revocation of fraudulent act, should be determined at the end of one year from August 27, 2012, which is obvious that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case with B and the defendant seeking the cancellation of the sales contract

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.