Appropriateness of the assertion that a loan was received as payment in lieu of a fraudulent act

In the case of giving notice of taxation to the husband after the agreement divorce, it is presumed that the wife's bad faith in fraudulent act is presumed.

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. A. (a) The sales contract concluded on August 18, 2005 between Defendant U20 and Nonparty ○○○ and Nonparty ○○○○ (******************) is revoked.

B. The Plaintiff:

(1) As to the land listed in the separate sheet, Defendant U2○ performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on 005. ○○○○○○○, which was completed on 2005. 200, regarding the land listed in the separate sheet.

(2) As to the land listed in the attached list, the Defendant U2Bio performed the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage near the land that was completed on 006. ○○○○○○, which was completed on 2006. ○○○.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant ○○ and the couple who completed the marriage report on January 12, 1985. From February 1997, 1997, he did not have any good relationship with the non-party ○○ and the non-party ○○ were living together with the other spouse on his resident registration. On September 2, 2005, he did so with his intention to ○○ and the non-party ○○ and the other spouse on his resident registration. On July 4, 2006, the agreement was reached between the parties, and the defendant ○○ and the other spouse are the children of the defendant ○○.

B. On May 17, 2005, the director of the ○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office notified the head of the ○○ Tax Office of the change of the income amount of KRW 450,000,000, the bonus income for the year 2002, which occurred in relation to the work at ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. on May 17, 2002, to 00,000, his domicile. On May 18, 2005, the head of the ○○ Tax Office notified the head of the ○○ Tax Office of the change of the income amount of KRW 450,00,00,000, which is his domicile.

C. Accordingly, on December 14, 2005, the head of the ○○ Tax Office sent a notice of pre-announcement of taxation on the corporation's income tax belonging to 209,424,000 won as the expected amount of notice at the above address of ○○○○ on December 14, 2005, and '○○ Construction' as the date of notice '2002' as the date of notice '2002' as the pre-announcement of taxation. On January 16, 2006, the head of the ○○ Tax Office sent a notice of pre-announcement of taxation on the corporation's income belonging to ○○○○○○○ on December 9, 2006 and notified 209,424,453 won as the global income tax on January 31, 2006.

D. In addition, on October 4, 2005, the head of the ○○ Tax Office notified that securities transaction tax of KRW 381,187 arising from the transfer of ○○ Construction Co., Ltd.’s shares on July 7, 2005 should be paid by October 31, 2005.

E. In ○○○ did not pay a total of KRW 209,805,640 (=209,424,453 + 381,187) of global income tax and securities transaction tax notified as above (hereinafter “instant tax claim”). On September 7, 2006, the amount of arrears of ○○○ as of September 7, 2006 is KRW 231,178,330.

F. On the other hand, on August 19, 2005, An○○ completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of ownership transfer of this case") with ○○○, the system, on the grounds of the "sale on August 18, 2005" (hereinafter referred to as the "sale contract of this case") on the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "land of this case") on his own possession on August 19, 2005, the Daejeon District Court completed the registration of ownership transfer with ○○ on the ground of the "Sale on August 18, 2005."

G. Defendant U2Bio completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) with the debtor as the head of the Daejeon District Court No. 1006, Oct. 1, 2006, on the ground of the “contract to create a mortgage on the instant land to ○○○○○ on the ground of the “contract to create a mortgage on the instant land on ○○○○○,” which is the debtor’s U2○○, the mortgagee, and the maximum debt amount at KRW 30,000.

H. At the time of completion of the instant sales contract and the registration of ownership transfer, ○○○○○○○○○○ 000-0 square meters in addition to the instant land, there was no specific property except for ownership of 000-0 square meters in the same Ri, and 000-0 square meters in the same Ri, and 000-0 square meters in the same Ri. On October 19, 2005, ○○○○ was thereafter 32,300-0 land in the above ○○○○○○ on November 7, 2005 to Nonparty○○○○ on the same day on October 19, 2005, each of the above ○○○○○○○ on the same day on which the above ○○○○○○ 000-0 land was registered on October 19, 2005, and each of the above ○○○ on the same day on the same day on the same day to Nonparty○○○ on the same day.

자. 이 사건 매매계약 및 소유권이전등기가 이루어진 2005년 경 이 사건 토지의 개별공시지가는 12,440,740원(= 8,110원⨯1534㎡)이다.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-3, 5-1 to 3-5, Gap evidence 6-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 7-2, Gap evidence 7-2, Eul evidence 8-5, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On May 17, 2005, the plaintiff knew that the amount of tax would be notified of the change in the income amount, but the plaintiff would be exempted from the disposition of default on national taxes, such as seizure, etc., due to the default on national taxes, and sold the land of this case to the defendant ○○. This claim that the sales contract of this case entered into between the defendant ○○ and the defendant ○○○ and the defendant ○○○, as a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, should be revoked. The defendant ○○ and the defendant ○○ are obliged to perform the procedure of cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership of this case, and the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case.

B. Determination

(1) The existence of preserved claims

According to the above facts, although the tax claim of this case against ○○○ was formed due to each imposition notice on October 4, 2005 and January 16, 2006, which was entered as of the date of the conclusion of the sales contract for the real estate of this case, ○○ at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract for the real estate of this case, was already notified of taxation data about 450,000,000 income as seen above by giving notice of change in income and recognition to ○○ at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract for the real estate of this case, and within five months from the date of the conclusion of the above sales contract, it is highly probable that ○○ was highly probable to bear the tax liability of this case in the near future. Thus, since the possibility of the above imposition was realized, this tax claim against ○○○○ may be subject to creditor’s right of revocation.

(2) The excess of obligations

As seen earlier, around the time of the instant sales contract, the market price of the Ansan○’s active properties, including the instant land, was approximately KRW 188,440,740 ( KRW 32,300,000 + KRW 143,700 + KRW 143,70,000 + KRW 12,440,740). The income and assets were the total amount of each of the above tax claims, and the amount of the income and assets was KRW 209,805,640, and KRW 12,440.

(3) Whether the crime of piracy was established

In addition, according to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that it would be a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is an obligee, unless there are any special circumstances, to conclude a sales contract on the real estate and have completed the registration of ownership transfer with the defendant U.S. ○, while he was not in excess of his obligation. Furthermore, it is presumed that the defendant U.S. ○, who is a beneficiary, was aware that it would prejudice the plaintiff, who is the obligee.

3. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. The defendants' assertion

Around April 7, 2003, 200 won, around 2, 200,00 won, around August 5, 2006, around 2,500,000 won, and around October 6 of the same year, around 4,300,000 won, around 6, 2004, and around 4,600,000 won, respectively, were leased to ○○○○○○. As the above loans were not recovered, the land of this case was transferred to ○○○ for payment in kind. Defendant U20 was transferred to ○○○ for payment in kind. Defendant U200, around 5,000,00 won, around 5,00,000 won, around 5, 2006, and around 10,0000,000 won, and the subsequent purchaser was not aware that the subsequent purchaser was a bona fide beneficiary of this case’s establishment registration under consideration to the effect that the subsequent purchaser was not aware of this case’s residential defense*.

B. Determination

(1) According to the above facts and evidence Nos. 9, Defendant U20 had been ○○’s wife but did not live in the same place as *, and Defendant U20 had been her wife from February 1997 to the time when notice of change in the above amount of income reaches ○○○, and Defendant U20, who had been her wife, had been her wife, different from inside ○ and address from around February 2, 1997. Defendant U20 and U20 had a divorce on July 4, 2006, and Ansan○ was her global income tax to be imposed in the future around December 9, 2005, which was the following sales contract of this case. Although it was recognized that ○○ was possessing three parcels of land located in the new e.g., as seen above, ○○ at the time of the sales contract of this case, there was no evidence to acknowledge otherwise as to the Defendants’ fraudulent act by stating the above facts and evidence No. 1, and No. 2.

(2) Rather, the following facts are acknowledged by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① evidence No. 1 presented to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ by means of loaning KRW 14,10,000 to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was merely a transaction statement of cash withdrawal on the date on which the Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○ indicated that he leased the above money, and thus, it is unclear whether the said money was actually leased to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was merely a transaction statement of cash withdrawal on the date on which it was alleged that the said money was leased. In light of the above fact that the Defendant’s lending of money to ○○○○○○○○○○○ was not.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the sales contract concluded on August 18, 2005 with respect to the instant land between Ansan and Defendant U200 shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and it shall be revoked as to the instant land, and Defendant U20 shall perform the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on ○○○○ on 2005 with respect to the instant land, and Defendant U20 shall perform the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on ○○○○ on 2005 with respect to the instant land, and Defendant U20 shall be obliged to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on ○○○○ on 2006 with respect to the instant land.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted in its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the plaintiff's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition by ordering the defendants to perform the above obligation.