by donation of the proceeds of sale of real estate, which is in excess of the liability and constitutes a fraudulent act

Since the sale price of real estate was omitted to the beneficiary in excess of the obligation by donation, it constitutes a fraudulent act and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the beneficiary is a bona fide beneficiary because he/she was unaware of the fact that the debtor is in excess of the obligation at the time that the beneficiary received the donation,

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

201Chap 24084 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Lee Dong-A et al.

May 3, 2012

May 10, 2012

1. The agreement between Defendant A and thisB on gift of KRW 000 on November 27, 2009 and the agreement on gift of KRW 000 on November 27, 2009 entered into between Defendant A and thisB shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 000,000, respectively.

2. The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 000 per annum with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

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

The text is as follows (as to the part of the plaintiff's claim for payment against the defendants, and in case the beneficiary bears the obligation of compensation for value as a result of revocation of fraudulent act, and in case the purpose of revocation of fraudulent act is to restore the deviating property to the debtor's responsible property, if the purpose is to return the property deviating from one of the beneficiaries to the debtor's responsible property, the other beneficiary's obligation to restore the other beneficiary's responsible property is also extinguished, and in case the beneficiary's obligation to compensate for value between the beneficiaries is in in in in in in in an in personam joint and several relationship, and considering this, it seems that the plaintiff is claiming to pay the defendants with

1. Basic facts

A.B transferred 00 land and buildings owned by it on October 27, 2009 to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate by adding up the above land and buildings”) and completed the transfer registration of ownership of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on November 6, 2009.

B. On November 27, 2009, thisB transferred KRW 000,000, out of the amount received as the purchase price of the instant real estate, to Defendant LA, and KRW 00,00,00 to Defendant LA (hereinafter “each of the instant payments”).

C. AB did not voluntarily report and pay the transfer income tax even after the transfer of the instant real property, and on October 25, 2010, the Plaintiff-affiliated Director of the Korea Tax Office determined and notified the transfer income tax amount to be paid by the BB on December 31, 2010 (the transfer income tax determined and notified as above "the transfer income tax of this case") as of December 31, 201, but this BB did not pay it up to the present day. As of December 1, 201, the additional dues due to the delinquency in payment of the transfer income tax of this case are KRW 00.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 6, and 7, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

In principle, claims that can be protected by creditor's right of revocation need to be established prior to the commission of the act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there is already a legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of claims, and that at the near future legal relationship, claims should be established by realizing the probability in the near future, and claims can also be established as preserved claims of creditor's right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da76426, Feb. 23, 2012). Since income tax on transfer margin of assets is abstractly established on the last day of the month in which the amount that serves as the tax base for the transfer margin occurred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu787, Mar. 23, 1993). It is probable that transfer income tax in this case was actually established on the last day of the month in which the ownership of the real estate in this case was transferred, and that taxation claim in this case was established at present.

B. Whether the fraudulent act was established

(1) Legal nature of each of the instant payments

The Plaintiff asserts that this case’s B was donated to the Defendants, and that this case’s 00 won was transferred to Defendant B, and that this case’s 00 won was transferred to Defendant B, and that this case’s 00 won was repaid to Defendant B, and that this case’s 00 won was transferred to Defendant B, and that this case’s 00 won was transferred to Defendant B, and that this case’s 00 won was transferred to Defendant B, and that this case’s 10 won was transferred to Defendant B, including 10 won and 00 won, and that this case’s 200 won was transferred to Defendant B, as a whole, from this case’s 10th of September 19, 203 to 209, and that this case’s 00 won was transferred to Defendant B. In view of the following facts, Defendant B’s 1 and 100 won were transferred to Defendant B, and that this case’s 200 won was transferred to Defendant B.

(2) The establishment of fraudulent act

On November 27, 2009, this Court held that: (a) the real estate sales price of this case, at the time of November 27, 2009, owned only the amount of KRW 000,000,000, remaining after deducting the secured debt, etc. from the secured debt; and (b) the real estate sales price of this case was 00,000,000 square meters at that time; and (c) the public land price of the above 00,000,000 square meters at that time is 0,000,000 square meters at that time, is significant in this Court. According to the above facts of recognition, this BB was deemed to have come to have been holding only the assets in excess of the capital gains tax of this case by remitting each of the payments of this case to the Defendants on November 27, 2009, and thus, this act constitutes a fraudulent act under the intent of the Plaintiff, which is a beneficiary, and is presumed to be a beneficiary.

(3) Claims by the Defendants and determination thereof

The defendants, and they did not know that this case was in excess of debt at the time when they were remitted from thisB, or that they would prejudice the creditor, so they are bona fide beneficiaries, but each of the statements in Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, and Eul (including each natural disaster) is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it, and the defendants' assertion is without merit.

C. Scope of revocation of fraudulent act

In other words, when the creditor exercises the right of revocation, in principle, he cannot exercise the right of revocation in excess of his own claim amount, and at this time, the creditor's claim amount includes the interest or delay damages incurred after the fraudulent act and the conclusion of the arguments in fact-finding proceedings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da66416, Sept. 4, 2001; 2003Da19572, Jul. 11, 2003). Meanwhile, when the national tax is not paid by the due date, the additional tax on the national tax is a kind of incidental tax imposed as the interest on the unpaid portion, and if the national tax is not paid by the due date without the due date for payment by the due date by the due date by the due date by the person who has the right of taxation, it is naturally established pursuant to Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act, and the amount becomes final (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du2013, Sept. 22, 2000).

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the agreement between Defendant AA and thisB on November 27, 2009 and the agreement on donation of KRW 000 on November 27, 2009 entered into between Defendant LAA and thisB is all revoked within the limit of KRW 000 per annum within the limit of KRW 200 per annum under the Civil Act, and the Defendants are obligated to pay to each Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 000 and the amount equivalent to the restitution thereafter, calculated at the rate of KRW 5% per annum under the Civil Act, from the day following the day when this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day when the payment is made.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is decided as per Disposition.