Whether the transfer of real property constitutes a fraudulent act

It is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was aware that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, a creditor, at the time of purchasing real estate, and that there was no other evidence to prove the good faith of the Defendant, and thus, it constitutes a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

1. The sales contract concluded on September 1, 2006 between the defendant and the 000 attached Form 1.

2. The defendant will implement to 000 the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by the Incheon District Court No. 00000 on September 4, 2006 with respect to the real estate listed in the list No. 1.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

As set forth in the text.

1. Basic facts

A. From August 9, 2005 to August 23, 2006, the game room business was operated under the trade name of 0000 to 0000-0 to 000000.

B. From July 25, 2006 to September 26, 2006, the Plaintiff’s subsidiaries conducted a tax investigation on the said place of business from July 25, 2006 to September 26, 2006, and confirmed the omission of sales declaration. Accordingly, 000 decided to rectify value-added tax as shown in the attached Table 2, and notified 00 to pay the said value-added tax by December 31, 2007.

C. Meanwhile, on September 4, 2006, on September 1, 2006, 2006, the Defendant entered the ownership transfer registration under Paragraph 2 of the Disposition (hereinafter “the ownership registration of this case”) with respect to the real estate listed in Attached 1. List (hereinafter “the real estate of this case”) which is its sole real estate without any specific property, on the ground of sale on September 1, 2006.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

In principle, it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, at the time of the fraudulent act, there is a high probability that there has already been legal relations forming the basis of the formation of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future by such legal relations, and in the near future, where a claim has been created as a result of its realization in the near future, such a claim

According to the above facts, prior to the act of selling and selling real estate of this case, 000, a debtor, was under investigation by underpayment of national taxes and under investigation at 00. After the act of selling and selling the real estate of this case, 00 won was imposed on 1,206,764,080 won in total at the time of the act of selling and selling the real estate of this case. Thus, there was a high probability as to the fact that there was a legal relationship which is the basis of establishing a tax claim at the time of the act of this case's act of selling and selling the real estate of this case, and that the tax claim is established in the near future, and it can be said that there was a claim to be preserved for the revocation of the fraudulent act of this case.

B. Whether the fraudulent act was established

(1) According to the above facts, prior to the imposition of the aggregate value-added tax of KRW 1,206,764,080 by a resolution of correction of 000, 000, 000, the debtor had already sold the real estate of this case, which is one of his own property, to the defendant with the knowledge that the integrated tax investigation of himself was in progress. Such act of selling and selling the real estate of this case in this case is an intentional harm to his creditor, unless there are special circumstances. The creditor, 00, who is the creditor, was aware that it would thereby prejudice the creditor, and the defendant, who is the beneficiary, was aware that the real estate sales contract of this case was a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da16276, Feb. 12, 191).

(2) As to this, the Defendant, under knowledge of whatever circumstances at the time of the instant real estate sale and purchase, contact with the information that redevelopment is promoted due to the lack of a single area including the instant real estate, and purchased the purchase price of KRW 70 million through the real estate brokerage office for residential and investment purposes. Of these, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant is a bona fide beneficiary, as it purchased the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the instant real estate on the condition that it takes over the secured debt.

On the other hand, it is insufficient to reverse the above presumption that the defendant knew that he would prejudice the plaintiff as the creditor at the time of purchasing the real estate in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the defendant's good faith. The evidence of the evidence Nos. 5 and 8, and witness Nos. 000, which corresponds to the defendant's argument, cannot be trusted, and the statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 and 7, which corresponds to the defendant's argument.

Rather, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 11 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was aware of the fact that 000 harms the plaintiff who is the creditor.

① At the time of the acquisition of the instant real estate, the Defendant resided in 00000 0000 0000 0000,000, and even though the wife and children still reside in the relevant place, the Defendant filed a move-in report on the instant real estate even though the wife and children still reside therein.

② Interest payment was made by automatic transfer from a passbook in the name of 000 from September 2006 to April 2007 with respect to a loan claim against 000 % of the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the instant real estate.

③ Nevertheless, no financial data exists regarding the Defendant’s payment of interest on the above loan to 000 (limited to the financial data that the Plaintiff paid to 000 from August 2007, when the copy of the instant complaint was served).

④ On August 22, 2006, 000: (a) completed the registration of ownership transfer claim against 000, a relative of the instant real estate on August 22, 2006; (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of 000 on August 28, 2006; (c) on September 1, 2006, at the time when a sales contract between the Defendant and 000 was concluded, 00 ownership was registered; and (d) on September 1, 2006, 00 ownership was registered; and (e) on the date of completion of the registration of ownership transfer of this case, 000 description was given to the Defendant as to the above details of the registration.

⑤ The Defendant was working in the real estate brokerage office located at 00,000, Namdong-gu, Incheon, Nam-gu, Incheon, which is located at 00,000, operated by 000, and was aware that 000 was operating the said game.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s cancellation of the instant real estate sales contract with 000, a fraudulent act, and is obliged to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case to 000 with its restoration to its original state.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the ground of the reasons.

1. Indication of real estate;

The indication of one building

0 00 000 000-0 Ground

Multi-household living facilities and multi-household dwelling facilities with 5 floors of reinforced concrete tanks

140.10 square meters per floor;

2 to 5 stories 133.12 square meters;

Indication of land which is the object of site ownership

00 000 000-0 Large 272.1m2

Indication of the building for exclusive use

The second floor is 00 square meters, built of reinforced concrete 59.93 square meters.

Indication of Site Ownership

26.9/272.1 of the site ownership.

2. Details;

Items of Taxation

Deadline for payment

Amount in arrears

Jinay

Date of establishment of tax liability

Value-added Tax

December 31, 2006

34,942,780 won

05.2 2

December 31, 2005

Value-added Tax

December 31, 2006

68,358,360 won

06.1 1

June 30, 2006

Value-added Tax

December 31, 2006

818,306,420 won

06.1 1

June 30, 2006

Value-added Tax

December 31, 2006

285,156,520 won

06.2 2

August 23, 2006

guidance.

1,206,764,080 won