Revocation of Fraudulent Act

The change of the right to lease on one's own name into another's name during the period for which payment of transfer income tax has been urged can be viewed as a fraudulent act, and the failure to submit any written statement to the purport of disputing the plaintiff's claim even after being served with a duplicate

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

1. The contract between the defendant and the non-party ○○ on the transfer of the deposit for lease on June 16, 2006 between the defendant and the non-party ○○ shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall give notice to the effect that the contract for the transfer of the right to claim the return of the pre-tax deposit stated in paragraph (1) was cancelled to the non-party Gong○○○ (41***************, ○○○○-dong 707, 2-***).

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The cause of the claim alleged by the plaintiff is as shown in the attached Form. Since the defendant did not submit a written reply and any other document disputing the plaintiff's claim within 30 days even after being served with the duplicate of the complaint of this case, it shall be deemed to have led to the confession of the cause of the claim under Article 257 (1) of the

2. If so, the transfer contract of the right to claim the return of the deposit of this case between ○○ and the defendant on June 16, 2006 should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant has a duty to notify ○○, who is the debtor returning the deposit of this case, of the cancellation of the transfer contract of the right to claim the return of the deposit of the deposit of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition without pleading.

Grounds of Claim

1. Occurrence of the preserved claim;

A. On December 19, 2005, 2005, Nonparty ○○○○○○○, a real estate owned by Nonparty 1,810,40,446,350 won (hereinafter “instant transferred real estate”) was transferred to Nonparty 1,186,96,00 won (hereinafter “○○○○○○○○○○○○,” which is the real estate owned by Nonparty 1,810,407,460 won (hereinafter “the instant transferred real estate”) and the total monetary liability against Nonparty 1,10 won for ○○○○○○○, which is the real estate owned by Nonparty 1,186,961,110 won, which is deducted from the total monetary liability against ○○○○○○○○○, which is the real estate, and for Nonparty 1,186,961,10 won as of January 27, 2006.

B. On January 26, 2006, ○○○ did not voluntarily pay capital gains tax of KRW 323,814,099 even after filing a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax on the instant transferred real estate at the competent tax office. On May 7, 2006, the head of the competent tax office notified that capital gains tax of KRW 359,793,430 on the said transferred real estate, including additional tax, should be paid by May 31, 2006.

C. However, since ○○○ only paid KRW 150,00,000, which is a part of the above capital gains tax to be paid, and did not pay up to now the remaining amount of KRW 231,972,930 (including surcharges), the Plaintiff has a tax claim that can collect the said unpaid capital gains tax from ○○○.

2. The establishment of a fraudulent act;

Around February 7, 2006, ○○ entered into a contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis at KRW 380,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the deposit for lease on a deposit basis”) with respect to an apartment building indicated on the attached Form (hereinafter referred to as an apartment building) which is an apartment building owned by Nonparty ○○○, which is an apartment building owned by Nonparty Gong○○, and made a registration of lease on a deposit basis at ○ District Court 7*** on the same day.

B. However, on June 16, 2006, ○○○ cancelled the registration of the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis under his name, and on the same day, ○○ had re-established the right to lease on a deposit basis under the name of the Defendant, which is the friendship of Nonparty ○○○○, who was the friendship of Nonparty ○○○, but the said right was urged to pay the transfer income tax of this case, which became due and due, pursuant to this agreement with the Defendant, with the intent of undermining the Plaintiff, thereby evading the above payment obligation of the transfer income tax of this case, thereby falsely transferring the right

On the other hand, at the time of transferring the right to claim the return of the deposit on the deposit basis to the defendant, there was no particular property except for the right to claim the return.