Whether it is a fraudulent act

The non-party ○○’s act of donation constitutes a fraudulent act committed with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, and the defendant also knew such fact.

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

1. The plaintiff shall execute the registration of transfer of ownership.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Grounds of Claim

1. Formation of secured claims;

The director of the tax office of 000 and the director of the tax office of 000 under the Plaintiff did not pay the scheduled amount of value-added tax and global income tax related to the business of ○○○ (00-00-0000) and did not make a voluntary report and did not pay until now.

(unit: Won)

Items of Taxation

Amount in arrears

Deadline for payment

Date of establishment of tax liability;

Date of Notice

relevant documentary evidence

Value-added Tax

1,890,400

‘05.09.30

‘05.06.30

‘05.09.30

Gap evidence 1-1

Value-added Tax

3,276,890

“05.10.25

‘05.09.30

‘05.10.04

Gap evidence 1-2

Value-added Tax

11,933,780

‘06.031.

"05.12.31.

‘06.03.10

Gap evidence 1-3

Value-added Tax

7,354,680

‘06.04.25

‘06.031.

‘06.04.30

Gap evidence 1-4

Global Income Tax

763,000

‘05.08.31.

‘04.12.31.

‘05.08.08.08

Gap evidence 1-5

Global Income Tax

345,310

“05.11.30

‘05.06.30

‘05.11.01

Gap evidence 1-6

guidance.

25,564,060

2. Occurrence of fraudulent act;

On April 28, 2006, the non-party 00, upon receipt of the tax notice from the tax office, donated the real estate listed in the [Attachment List (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case"), which is the only property of the tax office, to the defendant who is his wife, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership with the receipt number No. 13757 on April 28, 2006, Daejeon District Court ○○○ Branch of the District Court and the receipt number No. 13757 (Evidence A 2-3).

3. Intention of death and bad faith of the defendant;

Although the non-party 1 was obligated to pay taxes, the non-party 1 was deemed to have known that the non-party 1 donated the real estate of this case, the only property of this case, to his wife, and the non-party 00 was aware of the harm of the plaintiff as the tax claim at the time of donation to the defendant. The defendant also was a couple living with the non-party 00 and the non-party 00 did not have any other property except the real estate of this case, so it should be deemed that the defendant was aware of the fact that this donation was fraudulent at the time of inheritance of the real estate of this case, and that the defendant

4. Acknowledgement of a fraudulent act;

As such, the fact that the real estate in this case was registered under the name of the defendant was known only after the Daejeon District Court's decision to dismiss the registration of transfer of ownership was notified as of 16.05.16. (Evidence A No. 4)

5. Conclusion;

In light of the above facts, the act of donation of this case by Nonparty 00 constitutes a fraudulent act committed while being aware that it would prejudice the creditor, and the defendant also knew the fact. Therefore, the plaintiff was brought to the plaintiff to seek cancellation of the contract of donation and cancellation of the ownership transfer registration due to restitution as stated in the purport of the claim.