The legitimacy of the assertion that the land is a bona fide beneficiary who purchased the land without knowledge of the fraudulent act

It is reasonable to view that the Defendant was unaware of a fraudulent act on the ground that there was no particular provisional attachment registration or establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage, etc. on the instant land due to the real estate registration injury, and there was no knowledge of the fraudulent act, even though there was no specific provisional attachment registration or establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage, there was a difference between the transferor and the domicile.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The sales contract concluded on December 6, 2006 between Defendant Kim J-jin on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked. The defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on each of the above real estate to Kim J-jin for reinstatement due to the revocation of fraudulent act.

1.Basics

A. Kim Jin had operated an amusement room under the trade name of ○○○○○ Gameland. On November 28, 2006, due to the suspicion of tax evasion of global income tax and value-added tax related to the purchase of merchandise coupons provided by the said amusement room, Kim Jin was subject to a tax investigation by Silung Tax Office on November 28, 2006, and following the tax investigation on February 2007, he received a notice to the effect that the total amount of global income tax and value-added tax should be paid 502,876,720 won until February 28, 2007 as follows.

Table Omission of the Table

B. On the other hand, on December 6, 2006, Kim Jin entered into a sales contract with the defendant to sell each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "land of this case") for KRW 21,208,000 (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case") and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case in the name of the defendant on December 8, 2006.

C. On the other hand, on December 6, 2006, Kim Jin entered into a sales contract with the defendant to sell each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "land of this case") for KRW 21,208,000 (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case") and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case in the name of the defendant on December 8, 2006.

C. At the time of the instant sales contract, Kim Jin owned the active property of KRW 43,861,043 including the instant land, while the said delinquent amount imposed in the name of Kim Jin exceeded the debt amounting to KRW 502,876,720 in total.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1-3, Evidence No. 2-1 through 5, Evidence No. 4, evidence No. 5-1 through 3, evidence No. 6-1 through 5, evidence No. 7-1 through 5, evidence No. 9-1 through 10, evidence No. 10, testimony of witness Kim Jin, and purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. Whether the preserved claim is established

In light of the above, a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation should, in principle, have arisen before the obligor performs a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. However, at the time of such fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis for the establishment of the claim, and there is high probability about the occurrence of the claim based on such legal relationship in the near future, and in the near future, where a claim has been created due to its realization in the near future, the claim may also be the preserved claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da64038, Nov. 26,

In the instant case, while Kim Jong-jin did not receive the notice of taxation on the delinquent tax amount at the time of the instant sales contract, the date of establishment of tax liability for each of the said taxes was prior to the date of the instant sales contract, and there was a high probability that Kim Byung-jin had already imposed taxation on the delinquent tax amount in the near future after receiving a tax investigation on November 28, 2006, and in fact, there was a tax notice for about two months after the date of the instant sales contract, and thus, the said probability was realized. Therefore, the Plaintiff's above tax claim against Kimjin-jin can be the preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation.

B. Whether the fraudulent act was established

(1) In this case, it is presumed that an obligor in the first place of debt would commit a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances to sell and consume real estate, which is its only property, and in this case, the obligor's intent of deception is presumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da2606, 2613, May 9, 197). Thus, in this case, Kim Jin's selling of the land to the Defendant by the Defendant is a fraudulent act knowing that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, the obligee, and the Defendant's bad faith is presumed as the beneficiary, as a beneficiary, by means of reducing joint security of ordinary creditors, unless there are special circumstances.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that he is a bona fide beneficiary, since he paid the sales price to Kim Jong-jin and purchased the instant land, and he did not know at all the circumstances that harm the Plaintiff, who is the creditor.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant continued to grow up in the land of this case since 1997, which was far earlier than the conclusion of the sales contract of this case, and the defendant and ○○jin, even though they were in a pro-friendly relationship, they were in the location of the land of this case at a high time, they did not appear to have been living in Seoul and Seocheon-do around 1985, and there was no specific contact between the defendant's land and 100,000 won since they were living in the above 200,000,000 won after the date of the sales contract of this case. The defendant did not know that there was no special reason to view that there was no special reason to view that there was no prior notice about the transfer of the land of this case to the 200,000,0000 won before the date of the sale contract of this case, and that there was no reason to view that there was no specific reason to view that the defendant had been no reason to know that there.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.