such fraudulent act shall be brought within one year from the date on which it becomes aware of such fraudulent act.

Around August 27, 2012, when a tax investigation was completed, known that the instant real estate was sold to the Defendant, thereby committing a fraudulent act. Since the instant lawsuit was filed on August 28, 2013, the instant lawsuit was unlawful.

○ Article 83 of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23593, Feb. 2, 2012) (Disposition on Deficits)

2013 Gohap 101789 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Gangwon A

Korea

October 16, 2014

November 20, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The sales contract concluded on October 24, 201 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 between the defendant and △△△△△△ (*0105-********) is revoked. The defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration completed as******* with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 to △△△△△△ branch of Suwon District Court on October 27, 201.

1. Basic facts

A. △△△△△ on October 24, 201, the Defendant’s real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

The sale of KRW 380,00,000 was made, and KRW 10,000,000 out of the purchase price was paid on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 370,000,000 was paid on October 27, 201 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant sales contract”).

B. △△△△△ on October 27, 201, the former owner of the instant real estate, ○○.

On October 27, 2011, the registration of ownership transfer was completed for the reason of the sale on October 27, 201, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed to the defendant immediately on the same day.

C. The head of ○○ Tax Office: (a) on August 28, 2012, the amount of capital gains tax pursuant to the instant sales contract.

On November 1, 2012, 73,362,950 won (including additional tax) was determined, and the above capital gains tax was imposed and notified to △△△△△△ on November 1, 2012.

D. At the time of the instant sales contract, △△△△△△△△ was a country of KRW 636,370,202 (excluding additional dues) including global income tax.

The tax was delinquent.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, 10

Each entry, the whole purport of the pleading, including

2. The plaintiff's assertion as to the cause of claim

The real estate of this case is sold to the defendant who is the creditor under the excess of △△△△△, and each

It constitutes a fraudulent act to offset part of each payment against the existing obligation against the defendant.

The contract of this case between the defendant and his performance must be revoked, and the name of the defendant shall be restored to its original state.

The transfer registration of ownership in the purport of the claim shall be cancelled.

3. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. The defendant's assertion

The plaintiff at the latest and around August 27, 2012 after a tax investigation of △△△△△△ is completed.

It was known that the real estate of this case was sold to the Defendant and that there was a fraudulent act.

Since the instant lawsuit was filed on August 28, 2013, one year ago, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) Since the period for exercising the creditor's right of revocation under Article 406 (2) of the Civil Code is the period for filing a lawsuit.

The lawsuit for revocation filed after the expiration of the period shall be dismissed as unlawful. However, since the obligee becomes aware of the grounds for revocation, i.e., the date when the obligee becomes aware of the grounds for revocation, which is the starting point of the exclusion period in the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation, refers to the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, the mere fact that the obligor had committed the act of disposing of the property is insufficient to say that the act is prejudicial to the obligee, i.e., the act that the obligor would compromise the obligee, i., the lack of joint security for the claim, or the lack of joint security in the situation where the claim is insufficient, making it impossible to fully satisfy the claim, and further, it is necessary to know the fact that the obligor had an intent to harm the obligee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da823

2) In the instant case, ○○ Tax Office transferred the instant real property by △△△△.

The Do Governor did not report the transfer income tax on August 8, 2012; started an investigation for the imposition of the transfer income tax for 201 to △△△△△△△, and closed the investigation on August 27, 2012; ② in the course of the said investigation, ○○ Tax Director demanded the Defendant to deliver all documents verifying the actual transaction amount of the instant sales contract until August 17, 2012. The Defendant, around that time, remitted the amount of KRW 170,000 out of KRW 380,000,000 to the Plaintiff for KRW 170,000,000,000 to 190,000,000 to 10,000,000 won to △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, which was written on the date when the Defendant acquired the obligation to return the lease deposit, 200,000 won was written on the date when it was written.

(1) Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act (Presidential Decree No. 23593, Feb. 2, 2012>

Article 1 (Enforcement Date)

This Decree shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation: Provided, That Articles 10-2, 10-3, 10-4, 27, 27-2 through 27-5, and 83 shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation.

The amended provisions of Articles 86 and 86 shall enter into force on January 1, 2013.

○ former Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23593, Feb. 2, 2012)

Article 83 (Disposal of Deficit)

(1) The disposal of deficit under Article 86 (1) 4 of the Act shall be limited to any of the following cases:

1. Where it is turned out that the defaulter is missing or he/she has no property;

(2) Where the head of a tax office intends to write off deficits pursuant to paragraph (1) 1, he/she shall locate a delinquent through a local administrative agency or financial company.

It is necessary to investigate and verify whether the property is or not: Provided, That if the national tax in arrears is less than 100,000 won, it may not be investigated and verified.

3) According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s tax investigation was concluded on August 27, 2012, at the latest.

It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that he disposed of the instant real estate in excess of the obligation with the intent to harm the general creditors including the Plaintiff (other than this, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the exclusion period should be determined at the time of review by the competent department which reviewed whether a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act was filed). However, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant sales contract between the Defendant, clearly after the lapse of one year from the Plaintiff, as it was filed on August 28, 2013 and the date of review by the competent department which examined whether a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act was filed, which is inappropriate as the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit, and the

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.