Whether the deposit of the proceeds of real estate transfer to the spouse is a fraudulent act

It constitutes a fraudulent act that deposits the transfer price into the passbook of the spouse while transferring real estate and pays the transfer income tax without payment.

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

1. Each gift contract concluded on April 12, 2004 and April 16, 2004 between the defendant and Kim○○ shall be revoked within the scope of KRW 130,869,760, respectively.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 130,869,760 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

As set forth in the text.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or each of the statements in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1 through 4, and 4 through 6 can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings.

A. On April 7, 2004, the Defendant’s husband, Kim ○, the Defendant’s husband, sold the right to move into the ○○○○○○○○, 17, ○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, a one-way owner (the right to move into the said apartment that was being a reconstruction project at the time; hereinafter “the right to move into the instant apartment”) to Kim △△, for KRW 438,00,000 and KRW 38,000,000,000,000 out of the purchase price, received as his check on his own, and on April 12, 2004, the remaining amount of KRW 268,000,000,000 in each of the Defendant’s accounts (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The Plaintiff-affiliated ○○○ Tax Office imposed capital gains tax on the disposition of the right to move into the instant land on March 14, 2005 by imposing capital gains tax as stated below on the disposition of the right to move into the instant land and notified on March 14, 2005, but Kim ○○ did not pay it. Since additional dues and aggravated additional dues imposed on the said tax in arrears were imposed on June 1, 2007, the tax amount in arrears was 130,869,760 won in total (hereinafter “instant tax claim”).

[Attachment] Omission

C. At the time Kim○-○ deposited cashier’s checks in the instant account as indicated in the above paragraph (a), he did not have any other property except the above cashier’s checks received as the purchase price of the instant occupancy right.

2. Determination

(a) The existence and scope of the preserved claim;

(1) Although it is required that a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation was, in principle, incurred prior to the occurrence of an act that can be seen as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future based on such legal relationship. In the near future, where a claim has been created as a result of its realization in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37821, Mar. 2

(2) According to the basic facts, the instant taxation claim is related to the disposition of the occupancy right of the instant case, which was established after the date on which the said fraudulent act alleged by the Plaintiff was established. However, since there had already been legal relations, which became the basis of the instant disposition at the time of the instant disposition, and thus, the taxation claim was established in the near future based on such legal relations, and its probability has not yet been realized, and thus, the instant taxation claim becomes the preserved claim in the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act.

(3) In addition, the amount of claims covered by the preservation claim includes interest or delay damages incurred after the fraudulent act and until the closing of arguments in the fact-finding court. This legal principle also applies to the additional dues and increased additional dues of national taxes. Accordingly, in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act in this case, the total amount of KRW 130,869,760 of the instant taxation claim is recognized

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

(1) Donation by Kim○-○ and intention of death

As seen in the basic facts, it is reasonable to view that depositing the money received as the purchase price of the right to enter into the Defendant’s bank account, which is the wife, as seen above, to be a donation to the Defendant. By selling the right to enter into the instant land, Kim ○, who will be liable for payment of capital gains tax, to the Plaintiff, who is the tax payer, constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that the act of donation to the Defendant, which is the only property of the Plaintiff, constitutes a creditor, and the Defendant is presumed to have received the said purchase price with the knowledge that it would prejudice the Plaintiff.

(2) Determination as to the defendant's defense dispute

It is true that the defendant deposited a total of 38 billion won in the account of this case into the account of this case. However, ○○○ deposited a part of the money into the account under the name of the defendant, which was the wife for the mere custody, and then withdrawn a part of the money and used for the payment of part of the purchase price under ○○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○, ○○, and ○

According to the above ○○○○○ apartment sales contract, which was issued by the Defendant, 1, 2, 3, 1, 3-1, and 3-1, each of the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ apartment sales contract, the Defendant’s assertion that the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 5,00,000, 500, 194, 100,000,000 won, and 1,000,000,000 won, and 2,000,000,000,000 won, and 1,000,000,000 won, and 2,000,00,00 won, respectively.

(c) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Furthermore, the method and scope of revocation of a fraudulent act should be determined in light of the following principles: (a) whether a debtor has committed multiple disposal of property in succession; and (b) whether the debtor has caused insolvency by each act (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da69026, Apr. 27, 2001). However, when there are special circumstances to deem the series of such acts as one act, it should be determined collectively as one act; (c) whether the other party to the disposition is identical; (d) whether the other party to the disposition is in a special relationship with the other party; (e) whether the other party is in a special relationship with the debtor; (e) whether the other party to the disposition is in a special relationship with the other party to the disposition; and (e) whether the other party to the disposition has the motive and opportunity to each disposition are identical to the other (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23857, Sept. 24, 2002; and (e) whether the other party to each disposition is identical to the Plaintiff’s right to dispose of the gift within 400 days after the sale price.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, each donation contract between the defendant and Kim ○ concluded on April 12, 2004 and April 16, 2004 shall be revoked within the scope of KRW 130,869,760, and the defendant shall be obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of KRW 130,869,760 as well as the rate of KRW 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day after the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.