Whether it constitutes a fraudulent act against a bona fide beneficiary

Although the delinquent taxpayer and the defendant are in the wife relationship, the delinquent taxpayer had considerable property at the time of the sales contract of this case and were not aware of the global income tax. Therefore, the right of revocation may not be exercised in view of the bona fide beneficiary.

Article 406 of the Civil Code, Right of Revocation

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The sales contract concluded on October 1, 2005 with respect to 000-0 ○○○○○, ○○○-si, ○○○○○○○, 200-0 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”) between Ansan and Defendant U2, 2005 was revoked. Defendant U2, U206, with respect to the instant land, performed the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant land, which was completed on April 2, 2006 by the Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, and the Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, and the Seoul U2, U2, 2006, implemented the registration procedure for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration completed on October 20, 2006.

1. Basic facts

A. Formation of a taxation claim

(1) On October 31, 2005, the head of the ○○ Tax Office notified the payment of KRW 381,180 for the payment period of securities transaction tax and KRW 209,424,450 for the payment period of January 31, 2006 to the ○○○○ (*******************) and the said global income tax is imposed on the transfer of shares of ○○○ (principal) on July 7, 2005, and the said global income tax is imposed on the omission of return on the income accrued in 2002.

(2) On the other hand, the assessment process of the above global income tax is as follows. ① Around May 2005, the head of the tax office of the Plaintiff-affiliated ○○○○○ Tax Office issued a notice of tax change in the above content to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was related to the work at the said ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (ju) on the tax basis. ② On May 17, 2005, the head of the tax office issued a notice of tax change in the amount of income to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was located at the place of domicile. ③ On December 9, 2005, the head of the tax office sent the notice of tax change in the expected amount of income to the said ○○○○○○○○-0 on the tax basis of which was KRW 209,424,000.

B. The disposal practices of the land of this case

(1) The ownership of the instant land was owned by ○○○. Anal○○ completed the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “the instant ownership transfer registration”) on the ground that the instant land was sold and purchased on ○○○○ on 2005 (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) with Defendant U2○, one of his wife, on the grounds of the purchase and sale of the instant land on ○○○○ on 2005 (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”).

(2) As the wife of ○○○○, Defendant U2○ completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage (hereinafter “registration of the creation of a mortgage of this case”) around the maximum debt amount of KRW 30,000,000 on the ground of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant land to Defendant U2○○, who is one’s own person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’s person’

(3) On the other hand, from February 1997, Defendant U20 had been living separately with Defendant U20, Defendant U20 had been living separately with Defendant U20, and had a divorce with Defendant U206 on ○○ on ○○○ on 2006. Defendant U20 did not have any mountain record as Defendant U20.

(c) The property relationship between Ansan and ○;

(1) At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, Ansan owned 000-0 ○○○○○, ○○-si, 3058.1 square meters in addition to the instant land, and owned 000-9 square meters in the same Ri, 8416.9 square meters in the same Ri, and 000-0 2 square meters in the same Ri, respectively.

(2) On 2005, prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, ○○○, a sum of KRW 172,000,000, sold each of the above lands to ○○○, a total of KRW 172,000. After the instant sales contract, the ownership transfer registration was completed to ○○ and Kim○.

(Evidence) In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-3, Gap evidence 3-1 through 5, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 7-2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7, the whole purport of oral argument.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the cause of the instant claim, the instant sales contract concluded between Defendant U20 and U20 shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and due to restitution, Defendant U20 has the obligation to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case. According to the above facts, the market price of O20,000 won was about 170,000,000 won at the time of the instant sales contract, and the income property was 209,805,630 won in total of each of the above tax claims, which was 209,805,630 won in sales contract, which led to an excess of the debt. In addition, ○○○○○○○’s head of the tax office affiliated with the Plaintiff was within ○○○ on 2002, where the change in the income amount was known to the above ○○○○○ on 2005, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the instant sales contract had not arrived at the time of the instant sales contract.

3. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. The defendants' assertion

The defendants did not know that their taxes would be imposed on Ansan○○, and they asserted to the effect that they are bona fide beneficiaries and subsequent purchaser.

B. Determination on Defendant U2○○

First of all, we examine whether the Defendant U2○○, the beneficiary of the instant sales contract, was acting in good faith. As seen above, even though the Defendant U2○○ was the wife of ○○○, it did not live in the same place as ○○○○. From February 1997, the transfer of the instant sales contract, U2○○, who was the wife of ○○○○○, was living in a separate place from around February 1997, when the change in the amount of income reaches ○○○○, and even around 005, the Plaintiff was able to know the accurate amount of global income tax to be imposed in the future at around 005, which was after the instant sales contract. Considering that, at the time of the instant sales contract, U2○○○ owned considerable property as seen above, Defendant U2○○○ could not seek cancellation of the instant sales contract and imposition of a large amount of global income tax to ○○○○ immediately after the instant sales contract was concluded as a beneficiary of the instant case.

C. Determination on Defendant U2○○

Defendant U-○ is a subsequent purchaser from Defendant U-○. As seen above, insofar as the cancellation of the instant sales contract and the restoration to the original state cannot be claimed against Defendant U-○, Defendant U-○ may also seek cancellation of the instant registration of creation of collateral security.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.