Whether a contract of gift is a fraudulent act in default status

As long as the registration of ownership transfer is completed on the registry of real estate, the procedure and cause for the registration will be presumed to be legitimate. Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the subject of ownership ownership of the forest land of this case is the defendant on the ground of title trust is without merit.

1. A. Within the limit of KRW 431,128,710, a donation agreement of KRW 618,559,307 as set out in the [Attachment 1] List between the Defendant and Nonparty ○○○, the Defendant and Nonparty ○○:

B. Within the limit of KRW 73,607,790, a donation agreement of KRW 82,975,840 as stated in the [Attachment 2] List between the Defendant and Nonparty Kim○-○;

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 504,736,500 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) Sale of the instant forest land by ○○○ and Kim○○;

1) The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the original defendant with respect to 0,864 square meters of ○○○○○-si ○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○○, hereinafter “the instant forest”). However, with respect to shares of 58,864/70 of the instant forest on August 31, 1998, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to shares of 12,000 shares, one’s own wife, ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, ○64 square meters of the instant forest on August 28, 1998.

2) After August 11, 2004, the Defendant entered into a contract to sell 1,280,000 won forest land of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) on behalf of ○○○ and Kim○○ on behalf of ○○○ on behalf of ○○○ on behalf of ○○○ on behalf of ○○○○. On September 23, 2004, ○○ completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the instant contract on behalf of ○○ and Kim○○ on behalf of ○○○.

(b) Imposition of transfer income tax by the head of ○○ Tax Office;

1) On July 1, 2006, the director of the ○○ Tax Office: (a) on July 1, 2006, the amount equivalent to ○○○○’s share out of the acquisition value of the instant forest was KRW 103,012,00 won; (b) the amount equivalent to ○○’s share in Kim○ shall be KRW 21,00,000; (c) on the other hand, KRW 342,709,730 as income tax; and (d) on the other hand-○, KRW 58,511,780 as income tax for Kim○, the payment deadline was set and imposed until July 31, 2006.

2) With respect to this, ○○○ and ○○○○ filed a lawsuit against the head of ○○ Tax Office seeking revocation of the imposition of each capital gains tax by 2006○○02 without paying each of the above capital gains tax, but the judgment dismissing the lawsuit was rendered, and the appeal was lodged against ○○○ Court.

3) The additional dues which ○○○ is liable to pay the capital gains tax amounting to KRW 342,70,700 (i.e., KRW 10,281,29,730 (i.e., KRW 342,709, X 30, X 10) and the increased additional dues up to March 2008 KRW 78,137,690 [i.e., KRW 342,709, KRW 730, KRW 10, KRW X1.2%, and KRW 19; hereinafter the same shall apply]. The additional dues which ○○○○ is liable to pay the capital gains tax amounting to KRW 58,51,780 (= KRW 58,51,750, KRW 11,780, KRW 780, KRW 300) are the increased additional dues up to KRW 1,136,381,508).

(c) Donation to the defendant by ○○○ and Kim○○;

○○○○ deposited KRW 618,559,307 out of the purchase price of the forest of this case received from Kim○○ from August 11, 2004 to April 14, 2005, as shown in the attached Table 1 list, and Kim○○ deposited KRW 82,975,840 out of the above purchase price in the Defendant’s account from August 11, 2004 to September 23, 2004, or donated KRW 82,975,840 out of the above purchase price to the Defendant’s account, or donated it to the Defendant (hereinafter “each gift contract of this case”) by way of repaying the Defendant’s mortgage debt to ○○○ Bank, Inc., a forest of this case was set up on the forest of this case.

(d) An insolvent of ○○○ or Kim○-○;

1) While ○○ is obligated to pay KRW 342,709,730 as well as additional charges therefor to the Plaintiff, the ○○○ does not hold other properties.

2) While Kim○-○ is obligated to pay the capital gains tax of KRW 58,511,780 as well as the additional charges therefor, he/she is obligated to pay the said capital gains tax of KRW 58,51,780 as well. On the other hand, he/she owns only KRW 19,636 square meters of forests and fields in Jeonnam-gun, ○○○-gun, Jeonnam-gun (a

Facts that there is no dispute with recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including different numbers), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s claim such as transfer income tax and additional dues against the Plaintiff, ○○○ and Kim○, is a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation. The ○○○ and Kim○, by imposing an obligation on each Plaintiff to pay transfer income tax, etc., and deposit the purchase price of the instant forest into the Defendant’s account in excess of the active property in excess of the obligation to pay transfer income tax, etc., constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, etc., and thus, each of the instant donation contracts constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general obligee of ○○ and Kim○.

2) The defendant's assertion

With respect to the disposition imposing capital gains tax on the Plaintiff ○○ and Kim ○○, the revocation lawsuit is still underway, and the lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act of this case, which is against the Plaintiff’s claim such as capital gains tax, is without merit.

In addition, the forest land of this case is owned by the defendant on June 10, 1994 and owned by the defendant on June 10, 1998. It is deemed that the title trust was terminated on August 11, 2004 and sold to ○○○ and received the purchase price. Thus, the forest land of this case is not a fraudulent act against the plaintiff. In addition, for the shares of ○○○○, at least for shares of ○○○○, the contract of donation between husband and wife was revoked in accordance with Article 828 of the Civil Act, and thus, it is not a fraudulent act.

B. Determination

1) Formation of preserved claims

First, as to whether the plaintiff has a tax claim against ○○ and Kim ○, the health team, as long as the registration of ownership transfer on the registry of real estate has been completed, the procedure and the presumption that the cause is legitimate, and the party asserting the unjust cause is responsible to prove this. As to the forest of this case, the fact that the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation was completed in the ○○ and Kim ○○○○, was already examined in Paragraph 1, and as long as there is no evidence to support that the defendant had held a title trust on August 31, 1998, the defendant is deemed to have donated the forest of this case to ○○ and Kim ○○○, as long as there is no evidence to support that the defendant had held a title trust on the ground that ○○ and Kim ○○, the defendant is liable to pay capital gains tax to the plaintiff upon the transfer of the forest of this case (Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the owner of the forest of this case belongs to the purchase price on the ground of title trust is without merit).

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that ○○○’s share in the forest of this case was revoked under Article 828 of the Civil Act, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the defendant’s assertion on this premise is without merit.

2) Details of the fraudulent act

According to the facts found in Paragraph 1, at the time of entering into each of the instant gift contracts, ○○ and ○○○ were in excess of the obligation for the small property that exceeds the positive property. However, in such a situation, the Defendant’s donation of the purchase price of the forest of this case to the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors of ○○ and Kim○○, and it is presumed that the Defendant was aware of it in civil procedure.

Therefore, each gift contract of this case should be revoked within the scope of paragraph (3) below.

(iii) the revocation and restitution of fraudulent act;

Where a debtor's right to revoke a fraudulent act is established by the debtor's fraudulent act, the scope of the claim to be covered by such right shall be based on the amount of the claim at the time of the fraudulent act, and the claim arising between the time of judgment after the fraudulent act and the time of judgment shall not be added in principle. However, it is reasonable to include damages for delay in calculating the scope of revocation in calculating the scope of revocation, since the original claim is naturally extended and the damage for delay is a whole of the original claim as it is caused by the failure to obtain the principal repayment due to the wind of the fraudulent act. If the national tax is not paid by the due date, the additional or increased additional dues as provided in Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act are the kind of incidental tax

According to the facts established under Paragraph (1), the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 431,128,710 (i.e., capital gains tax of KRW 342,709,730 + additional dues of KRW 10,281,290 + increased by KRW 78,137,690 up to March 2008) to Kim ○○, KRW 73,607,790 (i.e., capital gains tax of KRW 58,51,780 + KRW 1,75,350 + KRW 13,360 up to March 208 + KRW 13,340,660). Thus, the Defendant is obligated to cancel the contract between the Defendant and ○○○○, KRW 618,559,30 up to KRW 70, KRW 307, KRW 4717, KRW 470, KRW 570, KRW 707, KRW 3075, KRW 707, KRW 4719,2707.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

List 1

Date of payment

Payments

Jinay

August 11, 2004

157,825,695 won

August 17, 2004

83,066,155 won

September 23, 2004

166,132,310 won

October 28, 2004

9,000,000 won

December 06, 2004

20,000,000 won

December 24, 2004

10,000,000 won

December 20, 2004

5,000,000 won

December 24, 2004

10,000,000 won

January 03, 2005

10,000,000 won

February 04, 2005

10,000,000 won

March 18, 2005

5,000,000 won

April 06, 2005

10,000,000 won

April 11, 2005

5,000,000 won

April 14, 2005

50,000,000 won

April 14, 2005

67,535,147 won

Total

618,559,307 won

List 2

Date of payment

Payments

Jinay

August 11, 2004

32,174,305 won

August 17, 2004

16,933,845 won

September 23, 2004

3,867,690 won

Total

82,975,840 won