beta
Title
an act of donation of real estate transfer proceeds to a child under excess of liabilities constitutes a fraudulent act.
Summary
In excess of liabilities, the delinquent taxpayer did not have the intent to pay capital gains tax, and the donation to his/her child constitutes a fraudulent act.
Related statutes
Article 30 (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act) of the National Tax Collection Act
Cases
Suwon District Court 2017 Ghana 517703 Revocation of Fraudulent Act
Plaintiff
Korea
Defendant
KimA
Conclusion of Pleadings
January 19, 2018
Imposition of Judgment
February 7, 2018
Text
1. The gift agreement concluded on November 15, 2013 between KimB and the Defendant shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 000,000,000.
2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 million won with 5% interest per annum from the day after the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.
3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
Cheong-gu Office
Judgment like the Disposition
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
Evidence A1 through A13, A14-1, 2, 1-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
A. Plaintiff’s taxation claim
1) On September 30, 2013, KimB concluded a sales contract with the EEE-dong 294-1, EEE-dong 294-1, and the purchase price of KRW 000,000,000 (the contract amount of KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for the contract and the mid-term loan amount of KRW 15,00,000,000,000 on November 15, 2013) to sell the land of this case to thisCC, etc.
2) On September 30, 2013, 2013, KimB concluded a sales contract with the EE-Gu EEE-dong 294 square meters and 292 square meters of housing units on its ground (hereinafter “instant housing, etc.”) to sell the instant housing, etc. with the purchase price of KRW 00 million (in the case of a contract payment contract, KRW 00 million, the remainder of KRW 00 million, and KRW 00 million, the payment on December 2, 2013).
3) On November 19, 2013, KimB completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land and housing, etc., the sole property of which is its owner, under the purchaser’s name.
4) On December 31, 2013, KimB reported capital gains tax on the instant housing, etc. by deeming it as one house for one household exempt from capital gains tax. On the same day, KimB reported capital gains tax on the instant land as KRW 000,000,000 on the same day, but did not pay the capital gains tax, and thus, the head of the EEE Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control determined the payment deadline on April 30, 2014 and notified KimB of capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000.
5) On August 12, 2014, the Director of the EE Tax Office reviewed the 1st generation non-taxation report of KimB, and corrected and notified the payment deadline of KRW 000,000,000 as of August 31, 2014.
6)The transfer income tax and comprehensive real estate holding tax on the instant land and housing, etc. of GimB are as follows:
Items of Taxation
Date of establishment
Date of Notification
Deadline for payment
Reversion
Notice Amount
Amount in arrears
Comprehensive Real Estate Tax
June 1, 2013
November 16, 2013
January 15, 2014
2013
0,000,000
0,000,000
Transfer Income Tax
November 30, 2013
April 1, 2014
April 30, 2014
2013
00,000,000
00,000,000
Transfer Income Tax
November 30, 2013
August 1, 2014
August 31, 2014
2013
00,000,000
00,000,000
00,000,000
00,000,000
(b) Donation by KimB;
1) On September 30, 2013, KimB transferred KRW 000,000,000,000,000 for the instant land and housing, etc. to the Agricultural Cooperative account in the name of HH in the name of HH in ASEAN.
2) On October 1, 2013, LH deposited KRW 00 million to Kim K, KRW 00,000,000 to Kim K, and the remainder deposited to KimB and KimB, respectively.
3) Kim K deposited KRW 00 million to the dedicatedO of the restaurant that he works. Meanwhile, the dedicatedO is the husband of KimB KimM, and KimL is the wife of KimB, and KimL is the wife of KimB KimN.
4) 김BB이 2013. 11. 15. 중도금 0억 0,000만 원을 받아 아들 김GG 직장 동료인 이QQ의 계좌로 이체하였고, 이QQ는 김BB 아들인 피고 명의 계좌로 0억 0,000만원을 이체하였다(이하, '이 사건 증여행위'라 한다).
5) On November 19, 2013, KimB repaid the remainder of KRW 000,000,000 in agricultural loans of KRW 000,000 among the remainder of KRW 19,000,000,000, and the remainder of KRW 000,000,000 in the account was transferred to that account in its name and transferred to the agricultural bank account in the name of HN on November 25, 2013, and the remainder was remitted to the agricultural bank account in the name of HN, and then deposited KRW 00,000,000 in cash after the remainder was transferred to that another bank account in its name.
2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment of this court
(a) the existence of the secured claim;
1) Parties’ assertion
A) Party’s assertion
(1) The plaintiff's assertion
Even if there was no taxation claim against the plaintiff KimB at the time of the donation by KimB, the above taxation claim constitutes the preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation.
(2) The defendant's counterargument
On November 15, 2013, which was much earlier than April 1, 2014, the payment notice date of capital gains tax, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim cannot be the preserved claim of obligee’s right of revocation.
B) The judgment of this Court
“A claim that may be protected by obligee’s right of revocation may, in principle, be deemed to be a fraudulent act. However, there is high probability that the legal relationship, which is the basis of establishment of a claim, has already occurred at the time of the fraudulent act, and that the claim is established in the near future. In the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da81870, Mar. 29, 2002). This is based on the purport of the obligee’s right of revocation system that reduces the joint security of the claim by the obligor’s intention to impair the obligee from an equitable and moral point of view. As such, “the legal relationship, which serves as the basis for establishment of the claim” is not limited to the legal relationship between the parties, and thus, it is highly probable that the claim is established in the near future, and thus, it is probable that the sale contract was established by the Plaintiff’s duty of cancellation or transfer of the claim, and thus, constitutes a quasi-legal relationship or fact-finding.”
B. Whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act
1) According to the above facts, the active property of KimB at the time of the donation of this case is 00 balance in sales.
The amount of KRW 00,000 is KRW 00,000,000,000,000 in total, including the agricultural loan balance of KRW 0,000,000,00 in capital gains tax, and the donation of this case was made in excess of KRW 00,000,00 in total.
As above, the obligor’s intentional intent is presumed at the time of donation in cases where the obligor’s act of donation was committed to fall short of his/her obligation due to the inclusion of his/her donated obligation in a small property without any intention or intent to impair the obligee, and the obligor’s intentional intent is presumed to exist at the time of the donation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da2515, Apr. 9, 199; 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001; 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001; 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006; 2004Da61280, Jul. 4, 2006; 2006, the Defendant’s presumption that the beneficiary was a fraudulent act is presumed to have been aware of the beneficiary’s fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da.).
2) Whether the Kim Sung-chul had no intention to kill
A) Defendant’s assertion
이QQ를 거쳐 피고에게 금원을 송금한 이유는 차녀나 삼녀 모르게 증여하려고 이QQ 명의의 계좌를 이용한 것이지 채권자들 모르게 금원을 숨기거나 세탁하려고 한 것이 아니고, 김BB은 이 사건 토지에 대하여만 양도소득세를 부담하고 이 사건 주택 등은 1세대 1주택으로 비과세대상으로 알고 있어 잔금 00억 0,000만 원에서 대출금 0,000,000,000원을 지급하고 그 나머지 대금 000,000,000원으로 이 사건 토지에 대한 양도소득세 000,000,000원을 납부하려고 하였으나 세무서가 이 사건 주택 등에 대하여 비과세대상이 아니라고 하여 이 사건 주택 등에 대한 양도소득세는 물론 이 사건 토지에 대한 양도소득세도 납부하지 않고 법적으로 다투려고 하다가 양도소득세를 납부하지 않은 것이지 처음부터 이를 납부할 의사가 없었던 것은 아니므로 김BB에게는 조세채권자인 원고를 해할 의사가 없었다.
B) The judgment of this Court
갑15호증의 기재에 의하면, 김BB은 조세범처벌법위반 고발 사건에서 부동산 매도 후 세금을 납부하면 남는 금원이 없어 세금을 납부하지 않았고, 세금을 피하기 위하여 이QQ 명의의 계좌를 사용하였으며, 남는 금원 약 000,000,000원은 현금으로 출금하여 그가 사용하였다고 진술한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 위 인정사실과 아울러 김BB이 2013. 12. 31. 이 사건 토지에 대한 양도소득세 000,000,000원을 신고하였고 EEE세무서장이 이 사건 주택 등에 대하여 1세대 1주택 비과세 부분에 대하여 과세를 통보한 것은 2014. 8. 12.로 이 사건 주택 등에 대하여 과세결정이 나기 전에도 김BB은 이 사건 토지에 대한 양도소득세를 납부하지 않았고, 이 사건 주택 등에 대한 과세에 대하여 행정청에 불복하지도 않은 사정 등을 종합하면, 김BB이 이 사건 토지와 주택 등에 대한 양도소득세를 납부할 의사가 있었다고 보기 어렵고, 을2의 기재만으로는 김BB의 사해의사 없음을 인정하기에 부족하며 피고의 위 주장사실에 부합하는 증인 김BB의 증언은 믿을 수 없고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.
(c) Scope of revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;
Therefore, the gift act of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, it is revoked, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 00 million and delay damages.
3. Conclusion
그렇다면 김BB과 피고 사이에 2013. 11. 15. 체결된 증여계약을 취소하고, 피고는 원고에게 0억 0,000만 원 및 이에 대하여 판결확정일 다음…熏纓�다 갚는 날까지 민법에 정해진 연 5%의 비율에 따른 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있으므로 원고의 청구는 이유 있어 이를 인용한다.