Seoul Southern District Court 2010Kahap2007 (2011.09.09)

The repayment of a spouse's loan out of the debtor's real estate purchase price is recognized as a fraudulent act.

The debtor's repayment of a spouse's loan out of the real estate sales amount, which is part of the positive property loan, is recognized as a fraudulent act constituting a donation contract, but it is sufficient to view that the part of the sales amount was paid to the same student prior to the borrowing of a reasonable amount from the same student, and thus, it cannot be concluded that

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2011Na74675 Revocation, etc. of Fraudulent Act

Korea

LAA

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2010Gahap2007 Decided September 9, 2011

March 21, 2012

April 18, 2012

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance that exceeds the following shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation shall be dismissed.

A. The contract of gift of KRW 000,000 entered into on March 7, 2007 between the defendant and the nextB shall be revoked.

B. 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.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. 40% of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and 60% by the Defendant respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The contract of donation of KRW 000 and KRW 000,000, which was concluded on March 7, 2007 between the Defendant and the nextB shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 000. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum with respect to KRW 000 and its amount from the day following the day this decision became final to day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. Sale of real estate by the Defendant’s husband’s husband BB

On February 14, 2007, the Defendant’s husband B sold 000 m20,066 m2 (hereinafter “the instant land”) to CCC Environmental Services Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party”) in leisure time to KRW 16,066 m2 (hereinafter “the instant purchase price”), 000 for the same day the down payment from the Non-Party Company, and 000 for the remainder of KRW 00 on March 7, 2007, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land to the Non-Party Company.

B. Use of the sales price of the instant case

(1) On May 28, 2004, the Defendant borrowed KRW 000 from the Free Trade Association for Free Trade (hereinafter referred to as the “FFF”) and completed the registration of establishment of a collateral security holder, the maximum debt amount of KRW 000, and the debtor with respect to KRW 000,000,000, OOOOO owned by the Defendant. On March 7, 2007, BB paid the Defendant the above principal and interest debt (hereinafter referred to as the “the instant repayment”) against the Defendant’s Suhyup at KRW 00,000, and accordingly, on March 9, 2007, the registration of establishment of a collateral security was cancelled.

(2) On March 7, 2007, the nextB deposited KRW 000 out of the instant purchase price into a national bank account in the name of the Defendant’s female largestCC, and on March 8, 2007, the largestCC deposited KRW 000 out of that date into a national bank account in the name of the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “the instant deposit”).

C. Establishment of a taxation claim against the Plaintiff’s borrowerB

The plaintiff holds three tax claims against the nextB, including the transfer income tax due to the sale of the land in this case. The amount of each tax claim as of September 2010 shall be as follows:

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 11 (if there are family numbers, including branch numbers, and hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The existence of the claim to preserve the fraudulent act;

According to the above facts, among the principal tax claims 1 and 2, the portion of the principal tax obligation is 3 years prior to the date on which the plaintiff claims the establishment date of his creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's claim.

3. Whether the fraudulent act is constituted;

(a) the debtor's insolvency;

In full view of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence and evidence Nos. 22 and 23, the financial status of the nextB at the time of the payment in this case and the following are as follows. Meanwhile, in order for the debtor's disposal of property to be a fraudulent act, the debtor's disposal of property should be reduced in the debtor's whole property, and the debtor's small property should be more than the debtor's active property, i.e., the debtor's disposal of property should be more than the debtor's active property, unless there are special circumstances that the debtor's disposal of property should be viewed as one act, and it should not be determined whether the debtor's disposal of property as a whole causes insolvency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da69026, Apr. 27, 201).

B. Whether the instant repayment and the instant deposit constitute a fraudulent act

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) The plaintiff

① The instant repayment is a repayment made by the following BB by subrogation against the Defendant’s balance of principal and interest of loan to the Suhyup, and its substance shall be deemed that the nextB made the donation amount to the Defendant by subrogation.

② The deposit of this case shall be deemed to have been donated KRW 000 to the Defendant using the Defendant’s credit largestCC account.

(B) Defendant

① From June 2003, the Defendant was in fact divorced from the nextB, and the instant repayment was repaid by the nextB to the company (KK) operated by the nextB in order to resolve the Defendant’s debt, and the actual obligor of the said loan was the next BB, not the Defendant, and the next BB made a joint assumption of the obligation or acceptance of the obligation of the said loan under the name of the Defendant, and the next B was merely the Defendant’s repayment of the said loan, not the Defendant’s donation of the said money from the nextB.

② From 1993 to 10 years, the deposit in this case lent a total amount of KRW 000 to the next BB with company operating funds, and the next BB deposited KRW 000 out of the purchase price in the account in the name of the largestCC for the repayment of the loan, and the Defendant borrowed KRW 000 from the largestCC because it is necessary to pay the lease deposit for apartment house, etc., and the Defendant did not receive the said money from the next BB.

(2) Relevant legal principles

If a debtor has donated his own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, such act would constitute a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances. However, it does not constitute a fraudulent act in principle unless the debtor, in collusion with some creditors, made performance with intent to prejudice other creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da62167, Jun. 15, 2006). In addition, where the creditor seeking revocation of a fraudulent act claims the debtor's monetary payment to the beneficiary as a gift, and the beneficiary claims that it was paid as a repayment of the existing obligation, and it constitutes a denial of the creditor's assertion, and the obligor's monetary payment is considerably different depending on whether the debtor's monetary payment is a donation, and the obligor's payment should be proved and proved depending on whether it was a donation, and it constitutes a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da62167, Jun. 15, 2006).

(3) Determination on the instant repayment

The debt borne by one spouse in the name of the husband and wife is considered as a limited liability, unless it is recognized as a debt due to ordinary domestic affairs or as a cost necessary for the common life of the husband and wife. The defendant borrowed 000 won from the Suhyup on May 28, 2004, and the defendant established a mortgage on the apartment owned by the defendant as a security for the above loan and the debtor for the establishment of the mortgage was the defendant, and the above loan was deposited into the account in the name of the defendant on May 31, 2004 according to the evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence that the above loan was transferred to the account in the name of the defendant on May 31, 2004. In other words, the above facts evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence that the borrower used the above loan for the repayment of the debt of the company operated by the defendant, and between the defendant or the borrower and the 0B, and between the defendant or the 30B and the defendant.

(4) Determination on the instant deposit

차BB가 2007. 3. 7. 이 사건 매매대금 중 000원을 최CC 명의의 계좌에 입금하고 최CC은 그 다음날인 2007. 3. 8. 이를 전액 출금한 다음， 같은 날 피고 명의의 계좌로 000원을 입금한 사실과 피고와 차BB는 법률상 부부이고 최CC은 피고의 여동생인 사실은 앞서 보았고， 위 인정사실에다가 차BB와 최CC 사이， 최CC과 피고 사이에 금전거래에 관한 차용증 등 처분문서가 각 존재하지 않고， 차BB와 최CC 사이의 금전대여에 관한 금융자료가 부족한 사정까지 보태어 보면， 차BB， 최CC 및 피고 사이의 위와 같은 금전거래의 경위에 다소의 의문이 들기는 한다. 그러나 한편， 갑 제3， 14， 15호증， 을 제3， 4， 6， 12호증의 각 기재， 제1심 증인 최 CC의 일부 증언 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면，① 최CC이 1998. 4. 3. 차BB와 이 사건 토지에 관하여 000원을 대금으로 정한 매매예약을 체결하고 1998. 7. 31. 이 사건 토지에 관하여 위 매매예약을 원인으로 한 소유권이전청구권가등기를 마쳤는데， 피고가 이 사건 토지를 소외 회사에게 매매하고 받은 잔금 중 000원을 최CC 명의의 계좌로 송금한 당일인 2007. 3. 7. 위 소유권이전청구권가등기가 말소된 사실，② 차BB가 최CC에게 2000. 4. 20. 액면금 000원， 2001. 10. 12. 액면 금 000원의 약속어음을 각 발행하여 준 사실，③ 피고는 최CC로부터 받은 000원 중 000원을 2007. 4. 10.부터 2007. 4. 24.까지 4회에 걸쳐 며느리인 오DD 명의의 계좌로 입금하였는데， 오DD은 박EE의 대리인 김FF과 사이에 인천 부평구 OO동 000 OOOO아파트 0동 0호에 관하여 보증금 000원의 임대차계약을 체결하고 보증금 잔금 000원을 2007. 4. 25.에 지급하EE 한 약정에 따라 2007. 4. 25. 피고로부터 입금 받은 돈 중 000원을 보증금 잔금으로 김FF 명의의 계좌로 송금한 사실，④ 최CC이 2007. 3. 8. 피고 명의의 계좌로 000원을 입금한 이후 피고가 최CC 명의의 계좌로 2007. 11. 16. 000원， 2009. 4. 30. 000원， 2009. 7. 2. 000원， 2010. 4. 7. 000원 등 들쑥날쑥하기는 하지만 이자로 볼 여지도 있는 금액을 각 송금한 사실도 인정할 수 있어， 1998년에서 2001년까지 사이에 차BB가 최CC로부터 상당한 금액을 차용하였다가 이 사건 매매대금 중 000원으로 변제하였다고 보기에 충분한 징표와 피고가 위 000원을 최CC로부터 다시 차용한 것으로도 볼 수 있는 징표가 확인되는 이상， 앞에서 인정한 사실 및 사정만으로는 이 사건 입금이 차BB가 최CC 명의의 계좌를 이용하여 피고에게 000원을 증여한 것이라고 단정하기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다. 따라서 원고의 이 부분 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다. 사해의사 및 악의의 추정 앞서 본 바와 같이 차BB는 이 사건 변제 무렵 이 사건 매매대금이 적극재산의 대부분이었음에도 이를 단시간 내에 소비하였고 그 결과 채무초과의 상태에 빠지게 되었으므로 이 사건 변제로 인하여 일반 채권자들의 공동담보를 감소시키는 결과를 가져 오게 된다는 것을 인식하고 있었다고 할 것이고， 채무자인 차BB의 사해의사가 인정된 이상 수익자인 피고의 악의도 추정된다. 이에 대하여 피고는 선의의 수익자라고 주장하나， 사해행위취소소송에 있어서 수익자가 사해행위임을 몰랐다는 사실은 그 수익자 자신에게 입증책임이 있는 것이고， 그 사해행위 당시 수익자가 선의였음을 인정함에 있어서는 객관적이고도 납득할 만한 증거자료 등이 뒷받침되어야 하는데(대법원 2006. 4. 14. 선고 2006다5710 판결 등 참조)， 피고가 제출한 증거들만으로는 위 추정을 뒤집기 어렵고 달리 피고의 선의를 인정 할 증거가 없으므로， 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

4. Scope of revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement.

Therefore, the repayment of this case is a fraudulent act that constitutes a gift contract, and the full amount of KRW 000, which is within the scope of the Plaintiff’s preserved claim, has been cancelled, and the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of 00 won and its equivalent compensation at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

5. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. Since the part against the defendant which exceeds the above scope of recognition in the judgment of the court of first instance which has partially different conclusions is unfair, it is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.