The legitimacy of the assertion that the assertion of fraudulent act is a legitimate bona fide acquirer

Even if a real estate was purchased with due payment, it is reasonable to view that an act by a debtor, having already been in a state of excess of his/her obligation, disposal of his/her sole property, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, which is a creditor's joint security in relation to other creditors, barring special circumstances.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

1. The sales contract concluded on August 3, 2007 between the defendant and the jury shall be revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed under No. 33877 on August 6, 2007 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the non-party ○○ Bureau.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 12, 2007, the non-party ○○○○ Branch Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") reported on February 12, 2007 as earned income tax amounting to KRW 1,906,70 in the Dong Daegu District Tax Office, which was affiliated with the Plaintiff, but did not pay it within the due date. The head of the Dong Daegu District Tax Office decided the non-party 2,002,030 won by adding additional tax to the income tax accrued in February 2007, and the decision was made by the due date until June 30, 2007, and notified the non-party company on June 11, 2007.

B. In addition, on April 24, 2007, the non-party company reported 65,769,234 won as the value-added tax expected to be the first time in 2007 to the Dong Daegu Tax Office, which was under the Plaintiff’s control, but did not pay it within the due date. The head of the Dong Daegu Tax Office decided to correct the non-party company’s tax amount by adding the value-added tax of 1 year 2007 to the tax amount of 66,578,190 won and June 30, 2007, and notified the non-party company on June 7, 2007.

C. On June 30, 2007, the non-party company did not pay the above earned income tax and value-added tax until the above payment period, and the result of the computer search in the Daegu Daegu Tax Office verified that the non-party company did not have any assets.

D. Accordingly, the head of the tax office at the same Daegu District Tax Office, designating the oligopolistic shareholder as the representative director of the non-party company and the oligopolistic shareholder as the secondary tax payer of the non-party company, and subsequently, decided to rectify the amount equivalent to 40% of the amount on which each additional tax is imposed on each of the above earned income tax and value-added tax on January 2007, by the due date of the preliminary return of value-added tax 27,430,200,824,830, the earned income tax on February 2007, and the due date of payment by July 14, 2007.

E. Since then, ○○ country paid some taxes and imposed on ○○ country, the balance of the wage and salary income tax and value added tax remains in total 14,52,450 won.

E. Since then, ○○ country paid some taxes and imposed on ○○ country, the balance of the wage and salary income tax and value added tax remains in total 14,52,450 won.

F. However, on August 3, 2007, ○○ concluded a sales contract with the Defendant on the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as the only property owned by it, and the Daegu District Court completed the registration of the ownership of the said real estate to the Defendant under the Daegu District Court No. 33877, Aug. 6, 2007, pursuant to receipt No. 33877.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to Gap 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the ground of the plaintiff's claim

According to the above facts, as an oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company, a second taxpayer under Article 39 (1) 2 of the National Tax Collection Act is deemed to be an oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company. Since the director of the tax office affiliated with the plaintiff notifies the above associate country of the payment of each tax amount on July 4, 2007 through the decision of correction of wage and salary income tax and value-added tax, the plaintiff's tax claim against the associate country is legally established at that time. Thus, the plaintiff can file a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the sales contract of the real estate of this case with the above tax claim as preserved claim. The plaintiff's act of concluding a sales contract to sell the real estate of this case to the defendant, which is the only property of the non-party company without any particular property other than the above real estate of the associate country, brings about the result of reducing the creditors' joint collateral, and it is presumed that the associate country would harm the plaintiff, the creditor, and that the plaintiff's intent to cancel the payment of the real estate of this case is a beneficiary of the defendant's fraudulent act.

Therefore, the sales contract concluded on August 3, 2007 between the defendant and the ship country on the real estate of this case shall be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act. It shall be restored to the original state following the revocation of a fraudulent act. The defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of transfer of ownership as of August 6, 2007, received on August 6, 2007.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

In regard to this, the defendant is a bona fide purchaser who properly purchased the real estate of this case from a ship's country. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is alleged to the purport that it is improper, so there is no evidence to reverse the presumption of bad faith against the defendant who is the beneficiary. In addition, even if the defendant paid and purchased the real estate of this case from a ship's country with legitimate payment, it is reasonable to view that the debtor who is not in a state of excess of his/her obligation already was to dispose of the real estate of this case's only property from the ship's country, and thus, it constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, which is the creditor's joint security in relation to other creditors, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for all reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.