Gift contract constitutes a fraudulent act, and the donee is required to be aware of the will of the delinquent taxpayer's death.

After the receipt of the transfer price of real estate, the donation to the Defendant who did not pay the delinquent tax amount with the transfer price shall be deemed to have had an intention to commit a fraudulent act that has intentionally donated the transfer price to avoid a tax claim, and the Defendant shall be deemed to have known the fact that the donation contract in this case was a fraudulent act and the intention of a delinquent taxpayer's intentional injury.

2011 Gohap6752 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

KimA

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

July 5, 2012

1. The contract of donation of KRW 000, which was concluded on July 27, 2009 between the defendant and the non-party KimB shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 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.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 and Article 257 of the Civil Procedure Act).

Grounds of Claim

1. Formation of preserved claims;

(a) Circumstances of taxation;

The non-party KimB transferred the real estate of O200 O apartment 00 O200 O apartment and 0000 O apartment 000 O apartment O29, Jun. 29, 2009, O209, O2000 O29, O29, O2000, O2000, O200, O2000, in default of national taxes, and as of the date of filing, the amount of arrears as of the date of filing are as follows:

After the date of the notification of the transfer income tax of this case, and the national tax of this case was voluntarily reported and paid after the date of the fraudulent act of this case, there was a legal relationship that had already been subject to taxation prior to the date of the fraudulent act for which the plaintiff seeks its revocation, and on the basis of this, it was not paid by KimB until the date of the lawsuit, and therefore, the national tax of this case becomes a preserved claim.

2. The occurrence of fraudulent acts and the excess of debts;

"김QQ은 유일재산이었던 '시흥 OOO동'(이하 이 사건 부동산 이라 합니다)을 매매하고 그 양도대금인 현금 000원 (이하 이 사건 현금 이라 합니다) 2009. 7. 27. 피고에게 증여(이하이 사건 증여계약'이라 합니다)하였습니다. 이 사건 부동산의 매수자인 김BB이 소외 김BB에게 지급한 양도대금 증 부정액권 000원권 수표 3장 000원이 피고가 취득한 경기도 안산시 딘원구 0000 OOO역 OOO아파트 0000'(이하 이 사건 아파트 라 합니다)의 양수대금에 사용되었으며, 이는 김QQ이 2009.7.27 이 사건 아파트의 매도인 함RR에게 지급한 것으로서 외환은행 00지점의 금융회선내용으로 확인됩니다. (감 제2호 증의 1내지3 참조) 이 사건 현금은 김BB의 유일재산으로 이 사건 증여계약으로 인해 김BB은 무자력 상태가 되었으며 체납액 채무초과를 야기하였습니다. (감 제3호증 참조)",3. 사해의 의사 및 피고의 악의

After KimB received the transfer price of the real estate in this case and then did not pay the tax amount of KRW 000 to the Defendant who is an ASEAN, it would be deemed that there was an intention to commit a fraudulent act by intention to evade a tax claim, and the Defendant would have known the fact that the donation contract in this case was a fraudulent act and his intention to harm KimB (see, e.g., evidence 4).

4. The date he becomes aware of the causes for revocation of the fraudulent act;

The above facts were known in the process of confirming the financial slips submitted at 00 points in the foreign exchange bank on January 11, 201 among the tracking survey of the proceeds of the transfer of real estate by KimB (see subparagraph 2 of the second floor).

5. Value compensation.

In light of the above facts, the donation contract of this case between KimB and the defendant was concluded with the knowledge that it would prejudice the taxation right holder in order to change the disposition of arrears in the transfer income tax of this case, and thus, the defendant also knew that it was concluded. Therefore, in accordance with Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 406 of the Civil Act, the defendant is obligated to seek cancellation of objection and return the money received from KimB to the plaintiff as restitution. However, the defendant's actual use of the money makes it impossible to return originals, and the plaintiff is entitled to seek compensation for value by its revocation.