Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Whether the exclusion period has expired or not

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act)

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The contract of donation concluded on May 9, 200 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet between the defendant and Kim ○○ shall be revoked. The defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership completed on December 21, 2004 by the ○○ Central District Court ○○○○ registry office of December 21, 2004.

1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

As to the lawsuit in this case, the non-party Kim ○, who is liable for tax liability to the plaintiff, donated the real estate indicated in the separate sheet to the defendant who is his wife, and on December 21, 2004, the registration of ownership transfer on the above real estate was completed on the ground of donation on May 4, 2000, asserting that it constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditors including the plaintiff, and sought revocation and cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit in this case was filed after the expiration of the exclusion period.

B. Determination

On the other hand, a lawsuit for cancellation of a fraudulent act and a claim for restitution shall be filed within five years from the date of the juristic act (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act). Here, the date of a juristic act refers to the date of actual execution of a juristic act corresponding to a fraudulent act. Barring any special circumstance, it is inevitable to determine whether such fraudulent act was actually conducted, centering on the date on which the cause for registration was based on the disposal document, barring any special circumstance. As seen earlier, although the ownership transfer registration of this case was made on December 21, 2004, according to the evidence No. 1, according to the document No. 1, the fact that Kim○ and the defendant prepared a donation contract stating that the real estate of this case was donated to the defendant on May 9, 200 and obtained the approval seal from the head of ○○○○ on the same day, the ownership transfer registration of this case shall be made based on the donation contract of May 9, 200 on the date on which the cause for registration was entered. Therefore, the lawsuit of this case was concluded after the lapse of 2005.7.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.