Whether it constitutes a fraudulent act

donation to the mother of a real estate, the sole property of which is in default of national taxes, constitutes a fraudulent act.

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

1. The gift agreement concluded on August 25, 2004 with respect to 4/50 of the maximum portion of the attached real estate between the Defendant and Nonparty O shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 29,384,320 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case is finalized to the day of complete payment.

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

It is the same purport as the order.

1. Facts recognized;

A. From December 1, 1996 to January 14, 2004, the leastO operated the machinery manufacturing business under the trade name of "OOOOO-OO", the two-year period portion, the first half portion in 2002, the second half of 2003, and the second half-year value-added tax return in 2003, as well as the final return on global income tax for 2003 years.

B. Accordingly, the director of the listed tax office under the plaintiff's head of the listed tax office shall not impose value added tax for the above final tax return, and shall not impose value added tax

With the payment deadline of value-added tax for 2 years 2002 8,389,570 won and 2003.9.30, value-added tax for 11,102,680 won for 2 years 2003 as the payment deadline of 11,678,680 won for 2 years 31 March 31, 2004, the global income tax for 2003 years 5,505,230 won as the payment deadline of 205.

C. Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case"), 1/2 shares were originally registered in the name of the largestO (the 4/25 shares in inheritance) and six co-inheritors such as the defendant (the 6/25 shares in inheritance), etc., but the registration of inheritance was delayed due to the inheritance due to the inheritance's shares in accordance with the OO district registry office No. 7647, Aug. 27, 2004, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the future of co-inheritors. On the same day, the 4/50 shares in the 4/50 shares (=4/251/2) of the largest OO among the real estate of this case (the OO district court) between OO and the defendant on August 25, 2004 (the gift contract of this case) and the registration of ownership transfer was accepted by OO27, Aug. 27, 2004 (the title transfer registration of this case).

E. However, the real estate of this case is incorporated into the housing site development project executed by OOO.

After the completion and completion of the above inheritance registration and the registration of this case, the Defendant received compensation of KRW 73,460,800 from OOO on the part of the real estate of this case from 10/50 shares (=4/50 +6/50) in the name of the Defendant among the real estate of this case. After the payment of the above compensation, the real estate of this case was transferred to OOO district court's receipt by 8399 of receipt by OOOO registry as of September 9, 2004 as of 8399 of receipt by OOO registry as of July 20, 2004.

F. At the time of the gift contract and registration of the instant case, MaO did not have any assets other than 4/50 shares in the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 10 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether a fraudulent act is committed and methods of reinstatement;

A. The defendant's assertion

As to the plaintiff's assertion that the gift contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the LOO's Small and Medium Enterprise Federation's obligation for bill-backed loan loan amounting to KRW 90,00,000 to KRW 90,000,000,000, and thereafter, the bill offered as security was borrowed from OO Nong under the name of the defendant around March 2004 and subrogated for the above loan amounting to KRW 60,000,000 under the name of the defendant around March 204. Since the above O No. 4/50 of the real estate was transferred as part of the claim for indemnity against the above O, the contract of this case was not a fraudulent act, or even so, the defendant asserts to the purport that he is bona fide.

B. Whether a fraudulent act was committed

If the obligor’s property is insufficient to fully repay the obligor’s obligation, if the obligor provided the obligee’s sole property to a certain obligee as payment in kind, then the obligee obtains satisfaction of the obligee’s claim prior to any other obligee, while the joint collateral decreases within the scope of the same, the obligee is placed in a more unfavorable position than the previous obligee. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the obligor’s act of providing one of the obligees’ sole obligees with payment in kind constitutes fraudulent act in relation to another obligee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da7875, Nov. 10, 2005). The obligor’s act of offering one of the obligees’s own property to a certain obligee as payment in kind is presumed to have the obligor’s intent to cause harm to the other obligees (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da41875, Apr. 24, 201).

In light of the above, when the debtor Maximum Organization, which bears a large amount of tax liability equivalent to 65 million won against the plaintiff, did not own any property other than 4/50 shares out of the real estate of this case, the act of transferring the whole shares of this case among the real estate of this case, which is the only property for the defendant in mother-and-child relationship, as one creditor, to the defendant, constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff as the creditor, and even according to the defendant's obligations and property status of MaximumO, relationship between MaO and the defendant, details and result of the transfer, and the defendant's assertion, it seems to have been known that the MaO was known to the extent that the defendant borrowed money in his name at the time of the transfer contract of this case to the extent that it is difficult to repay the MaO's obligations on behalf of the plaintiff, and thus, it constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff as the creditor, and as long as the donation contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, the presumption of the defendant's intent and the beneficiary of this case cannot be presumed to be a beneficiary.

(c) Value compensation;

Therefore, the contract of donation between the defendant and MaO on August 25, 2004 between the plaintiff and MaOO on the portion of 4/50 of the real estate in this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to perform the procedure of cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration completed by OOOOO registry office on August 27, 2004 with respect to the portion of 4/50 of the real estate in this case, but the real estate in this case is accepted as a housing site development project executed by OOOO as mentioned above, so the defendant who is the beneficiary has lost the ownership of the share and thus it is impossible to return the original property. In case the beneficiary received the compensation for expropriation due to the fraudulent act, the creditor can claim against the beneficiary by the method of restitution for the amount of compensation for expropriation which the beneficiary received with respect to the portion of 4/50 of the real estate in this case to the plaintiff (=the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the maximum amount of compensation for 30% of the total amount of 10/500O/384.36

3. Conclusion

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

Indication of Real Estate

〇〇 〇〇군 〇〇읍 〇〇리 399 답 6559㎡ 이상