Whether the sole act of transferring the debtor's property constitutes a fraudulent act

Any act by which a debtor registers transfer of ownership of his sole property which can be appropriated for national taxes is a fraudulent act to evade the creditor's compulsory execution without paying the national taxes notified to him.

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

Grounds of Claim

1. The relationship between Nonparty ○○ and the Defendant

The words of Defendant ○○○, Kim Jong-young, and the spouse of Kim Jong-ri, I have the honor of Non-Party ○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “non-party ○○”). Accordingly, the Defendant and the Non-party are in a prison and wife relationship (referring to the “written evidence No. 1”).

2. Formation of a taxation claim which is a preserved claim;

A. From January 10, 2006 to February 25, 2007, the non-party is a person who has operated a new manufacturing business of the trade name, '○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○○, from January 10, 2006 to February 25, 2007

B. The head of ○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office notified the Nonparty of KRW 10,512,30 as the payment deadline on June 30, 2006 for the first preliminary return of value-added tax on April 25, 2006 in relation to the operation of the above business, but the Nonparty did not pay KRW 12,20,650 as the payment deadline on September 30, 2006 for the portion of the payment and the amount of unpaid tax after the final return of value-added tax on January 30, 2006. The Non-Party notified the Non-Party of KRW 11,211,370 as the payment deadline on October 25, 2006, but did not pay KRW 40,462,550, including the amount of national tax in arrears until now (see subparagraph 3 of the Evidence).

3. Fraudulent act;

The Nonparty’s act of completing the transfer of ownership on November 29, 2006 on the ground of the sales contract on November 3, 2006, on the part of the Defendant’s wife on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), which is the only property available for national tax appropriation, due to the failure to pay the notified value-added tax in connection with the operation of the said business, is not a national tax notified to him, but a fraudulent act to evade the Plaintiff’s compulsory execution, which is the tax payer for the instant real estate due to the disposition of default in national tax payment.

4. Intention and bad faith of the defendant;

At the time of transfer of the instant real estate, which is the only property available for the appropriation of national taxes owned by the Nonparty, due to sale to the Defendant under the default of value-added tax, the Nonparty would have known that the Nonparty would have known the Plaintiff, a tax claim, and the Defendant would have known the fact that the transfer was a fraudulent act and the intention of Nonparty’s deception as the Nonparty’s wife.

5. Whether the real estate in this case is a movable property usable for national tax appropriation

After the head of ○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control conducted an investigation of property against the Nonparty for the purpose of the disposition on default, as shown in the “Report on the Status of Property, etc. Data on Attached Property (Evidence A5)” (Evidence A), ○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○, and 99 square meters of forest land (value assessed: 32,571 won) is not worth property and the instant real estate is the only

6. The date on which he becomes aware of a fraudulent act;

The plaintiff was issued on August 6, 2007 and became aware of the fraudulent act of this case in order to execute the disposition on default against the non-party that the real estate of this case was registered in the name of the defendant.

7. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the act of the Nonparty’s act of completing the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on the instant real estate on the grounds of sale constitutes a fraudulent act under Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act, which constitutes a fraudulent act under Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act, by knowing that the Nonparty’s act was done with the knowledge that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, who is a creditor, in order to evade the Nonparty’s tax liability. The Plaintiff