If it is proved that the donation of money is a repayment of debt, it shall not be deemed a fraudulent act.

If it is confirmed that a delinquent taxpayer's monetary transfer has repaid the borrowed money, it shall not be deemed a fraudulent act unless there is any evidence proving that the person conspired to do so with intent to harm the plaintiff and that the repayment has been made.

2015 Doz. 100431 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

○○ et al.

July 9, 2015

August 13, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

1. Each gift contract of KRW 50,000,000 concluded on October 30, 2012 between Defendant ○○ and this △△△△△△△△, and KRW 40,00,000, concluded on November 2, 2012, and between Defendant ○○ and this △△△△△△△, respectively, and between this △△△△ and that of Defendant ○○ and this △△△△△ on October 30, 201

Cancellation of each contract for gift of KRW 50,000,000, and KRW 10,000,000 concluded on October 31, 2012

section 3.

2. The amount calculated by applying the ratio of 5% per annum to the Plaintiff, with respect to the amount of KRW 90,000,000, and the amount of KRW 60,000,000,000 to the day of full payment from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final to the day of full payment.

sub-payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties

The Plaintiff is a tax creditor of this △△△, and the Defendant ○○ is a parent of this △△△△, and the Defendant Gab.

The ○○○ is the husband of the Defendant ○○ and the △△△△△.

B. The Plaintiff’s circumstances of imposing capital gains tax on △△△△

1) The △△△○○○ (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “△△△△”) on December 12, 197, along with the △△△○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “△△△△”).

8. When redevelopment was conducted on the site and housing located in ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, which had been residing from around August 2008, 2008, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○, ○○-dong, ○○○○, 2004, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “○○ apartment”) purchased KRW 395 million and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of ○○-dong on November 6, 2008.

2) After that, on June 12, 2012, this △△△△△ sold ○○○ apartment, 212-dong 21601,00,000, 635, ○○○○○○○, 635, 212-dong 635 (hereinafter “instant sales right”) to Kim○○, for KRW 670,610,000,000 for the down payment of KRW 130,000 on the same day from Kim○, the intermediate payment of KRW 70 million on June 29, 2012, and deposited KRW 27,368,300,000,000 in his/her deposit account on October 30, 2012 after deducting the relocation allowance of KRW 27,76,242,00,000 from the remainder of KRW 27,368,000,000 (the check received KRW 236,3636,000,00.

3) On November 7, 2013, the head of the ○○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control of the Plaintiff: (a) on the ground that the △△△△△△ transferred the instant sales right to the instant circumstances but did not report the transfer income tax, the transfer income tax of KRW 141,579,750 (the determined amount of the transfer income tax + KRW 112,320,316 + the determined amount of the transfer income tax + penalty of KRW 17,97

The tax notice was issued on December 31, 2013 when the payment period was determined on December 31, 2013.

4) The Plaintiff’s transfer income tax claim against △△△△△△, as of January 12, 2015, KRW 166,214,540.

(141,579,750 + Additional dues 17,838,990).

C. The details of remittance to the Defendants of this case △△△

1) On October 30, 2013, this △△△△ transferred KRW 50 million to the account of Defendant Lee ○○ bank, KRW 10 million to the account of Defendant Lee ○○○ bank on November 2, 2013, and KRW 30 million to the account of Defendant Lee ○○○ bank on November 2, 2013 on the same day.

2) On October 30, 2013, this △△△△ transferred KRW 50 million to the account of Defendant Park Jong-young’s ○○ Bank, and KRW 10 million to the account of Defendant Park Jong-○ Bank on October 31, 2013, respectively.

D. The insolvent of the △△△△;

The △△△△ has not been able to pay the transfer income tax until now from the time when it was remitted to the Defendants as above, and accordingly failed to pay the transfer income tax until now.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap's 1 through 11, Eul's 1, 2, and 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The △△△△△△, despite the financial standing of the insolvent, shall be as described in Section 1. (c) to the Defendants.

As the above donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act, it is revoked because it constitutes a fraudulent act.

The Defendants shall be obligated to return the money received from △△△ to the Plaintiff in return to their original state.

(2) the Corporation.

B. The defendants' assertion

The act of △△△ delivering money to the Defendants by the Defendants is to repay the money borrowed from the Defendants.

△△△△△ is not only a fraudulent act, but also a fraudulent act from the Plaintiff on December 2013.

Before receiving the notice of imposition of capital gains tax, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport

The Defendants did not know the fact that they would be subject to, and the Defendants also remitted the said money from △△△.

The sale of the sales right of this case at the time of receipt, and thereby the transfer income tax will be imposed.

Inasmuch as the circumstances were not known, this case’s △△△ and the Defendants were in good faith.

3. Determination

Considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 to 16, this case’s △△△△ in full.

Husband and wife shall own and reside in ○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○, and a house owned and resided therein.

With respect to redevelopment, 2.7 billion won of moving expenses received, ○○ and ○○○.

In principle, ○○○○○○ apartment was purchased at KRW 395 million on August 29, 2008 with the loan of KRW 100 million, and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 2,000,000 upon request of the husband and wife of ○○○○○○○○ KRW 2,000,000, and KRW 105,000,000,000,000 KRW 2,000,000,000,000 KRW 105,000,000,000,000,00 KRW 100,000,000,000,00 KRW 105,000,00,000,000,00,000,00,000,00).

Therefore, the △△△△ and the Defendants, in collusion, performed their obligations with the intent to harm the Plaintiff.

Unless there is any evidence to acknowledge that the act of remitting to the Defendants of this △△ is a debtor.

The discharge of the obligation against the creditor is merely a fraudulent act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety on the grounds that it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.