logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.10.19 2017나50629
사해행위취소
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. As to the real estate stated in the separate sheet between the Defendant and B, July 31, 2013.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to B engaged in the housing construction and sales business, the Plaintiff has global income tax on August 31, 2013, 288,864,360 won in arrears, 2012 when the Plaintiff reverted, and global income tax credits on December 31, 2012 (hereinafter “instant bonds”).

B. On July 31, 2013, B entered into a contract under which the Defendant, the spouse, (hereinafter “instant real estate”) donated the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant donation contract”) (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on the same day.

C. At the time of the conclusion of the gift contract of this case, the instant real estate was set up a collateral security in terms of the debtor B, the mortgagee-mortgage bank, the maximum debt amount of 110,400,000 won, and the debtor B, the mortgagee-mortgage E, the maximum debt amount of 52,00,000 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to whether the exclusion period expires

A. As to the amount in arrears for the year 2012, the Plaintiff’s assertion was deferred as of June 30, 2014, and was revoked as of September 23, 2014, the instant gift contract and its fraudulent act at the said time, and the instant lawsuit were filed on September 24, 2015, for which one year has passed thereafter, and thus, the period of exclusion has elapsed and thus, is unlawful.

B. (1) The State’s exercise the obligee’s right of revocation against a legal act of a delinquent taxpayer with a claim for preservation against a delinquent taxpayer’s claim, barring any special circumstance, whether the State was aware of the grounds for revocation in relation to the starting point of the exclusion period shall be determined based on the tax official’s awareness in charge of the collection, preservation, etc. of tax claims. The basis for the public official’s awareness of other public officials in charge of the registration

arrow