Revocation of Fraudulent Act

The donation to Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 of the transfer price anticipated to be notified of the transfer income tax constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

Daejeon District Court 2016Kahap106760 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

○○ and 1

on 06 October 2017

on October 17, 2017

1. The gift agreement concluded as of July 25, 2012 on the KRW 136,000 between Defendant ○○ and ○○○ and ○○○○ shall be revoked, respectively, as indicated in the separate sheet, between the gift agreement concluded as of July 25, 2012 and the Defendant △△△△△

2. Defendant ○○○ shall pay to the Plaintiff 136 million won, Defendant 159 million won to the dedicated money, Defendant 150 million won to the dedicated money, and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when this judgment is finalized to the day of full payment.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 4, 2012, Magsung transferred 1,813,750,000 square meters of forests and fields located in the head of Busan-gun, Busan-gun, Busan-gun, and 4,659 square meters of forests and fields in the same Ri, 11,600 square meters of forests and fields, and 3,683 square meters of forests and fields in the same Ri (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) to 1,813,750,000 square meters of forests and fields (hereinafter referred to as “instant transfer”), and the scheduled return of capital gains tax was filed on August 29, 2012.

B. On December 20, 2013, through December 31, 2013, the head of Daejeon District Tax Office, under the Plaintiff’s control of the Plaintiff, conducted a field investigation of capital gains tax on the return of the transfer income tax on YUD, and on February 10, 2014, determined and notified the transfer income tax of 332,95,930 won for the transfer of the instant case to YU (2012). The transfer income tax including the additional charges as of November 14, 2016, including the time of filing the instant lawsuit, is KRW 470,856,200, total amount.

C. From February 22, 2012 to June 26, 2012, ○○○○, the husband of the instant case, received KRW 1,813,750,000 from February 22, 2012 to June 26, 2012 as the deposit account in his/her own post office. Meanwhile, ○○○○, the husband of the instant case, paid KRW 136,00,000 out of the transfer price received, as above, to the bank account of Defendant ○○, the husband of the instant case, on July 25, 2012. Furthermore, ○○ paid KRW 80,000,000 from his/her post office deposit account to KRW 20,000,000,000,000 to KRW 17,17,200,000,000,000 to KRW 9,000,00,00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Defenses before the merits

The Defendants asserted that, inasmuch as the head of a tax office affiliated with the Plaintiff had already become aware of each of the instant payment acts in the course of conducting a tax investigation on capital gains tax on Magsung around December 2013, the instant lawsuit was brought on November 14, 2016, one year after the Plaintiff became aware of the disposition, and that the exclusion period has expired and is unlawful.

B. Determination

“The date when the obligee, who is the starting point for the obligee’s right of revocation, becomes aware of the requirement of the obligee’s right of revocation.” That is, the date when the obligee becomes aware of the obligor’s fraudulent act while being aware of the obligee’s right of revocation. Therefore, the obligor’s act of disposal of the property is insufficient merely because it does not constitute an act detrimental to the obligee, i.e., the joint security of the claim is insufficient, and the obligor’s intention to harm the obligee’s total amount of the claim was not satisfied. Furthermore, the obligee’s investigation was required to be 203Da40286, Dec. 12, 2003. 1). In light of the fact that the obligee’s act of revocation was conducted at the time of investigation on the obligee’s right of revocation 20 years prior to the date when the obligee’s act of revocation was conducted with the obligee’s right of revocation 16 years prior to the date of investigation on the obligee’s act of revocation 15 years prior to the date of entry.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a) Claims for preservation;

In principle, a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation should be accrued prior to a fraudulent act. In other words, the time when a transfer income tax claim is established is the last day of the month in which the amount that served as the tax base (Article 21(2)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Thus, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim on Cheongsung was established on June 30, 2012, and was established prior to the instant payment, which the Plaintiff asserts as a fraudulent act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim on Masung(Masung) becomes

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

1) Formation of the instant donation contract

A) In order to have concluded a donation contract with respect to money remitted by a debtor to another person’s deposit account, it should be interpreted that, first of all, the debtor and another person objectively have the agreement with respect to the grant of “donation” and free of charge so that the money remitted as such belongs to another person ultimately among the debtor and another person. Furthermore, the burden of proof as to such remittance lies in the creditor who asserts that such remittance is a fraudulent act subject to the obligee’s right of revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012).

B) We examine as to whether L/C contract was entered into with respect to the amount paid to Defendant ○○○. The Defendants asserted that the amount equivalent to the above amount was not a donation to Defendant ○○○○ because L/C was merely a payment of the deposit money for the purpose of concluding the lease contract. However, unlike the Defendants’ assertion, in the course of investigating the transfer income tax made on December 2013, YL and the Defendants stated that L/C was the source of the deposit money, which was withdrawn from the post office deposit account on August 16, 2012 and August 17, 2012, it is reasonable to view that L/C was paid to Defendant 1,000,000 won to Defendant ○○○○. In light of the fact that L/C was transferred in this case, and that it was paid to Defendant 1,000,000 won from June 30, 201, when L/C was established.

C) Next, it is examined as to the conclusion of the contract of gift to the Defendant 1. The Defendants asserted that, among the 159 million won 10,000,000,000 won paid to the Defendant 30 million won, the amount of KRW 50,000,000 paid to the Defendant 10 million was paid to the Defendant 10 million, and the Defendant 10,000,000 won was paid to the Defendant 10,000 won at the time of the transfer of the instant case. According to each of the evidence No. 15, the 30,000,000 won, which was paid to the 30,000,000 won, was closed on March 30, 2012, which was the time of the transfer of the instant 60,000 won, the 100,0000 won, which was paid to the Defendant 10,000,000 won of the 60,000.

D) Meanwhile, the debtor's legal act is subject to creditor's right of revocation even when the debtor's act is a false conspiracy. However, even if the payment of each of the instant payment in △△△, as argued by the defendants, was made in order to pay the company's operating funds jointly with the defendant dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated, and brokerage fees borne by △△ due to the transfer of this case, in such a case, each of the above payment acts is ultimately and ultimately distributed to the defendants who are in a special relationship with △△△, and it is reasonable to view that the debtor, in collusion with the defendants to avoid liability for payment of capital gains tax, has presented the appearance of the gift falsely in order to avoid liability for payment of capital gains tax.

(ii)the occurrence of an excessive obligation;

In principle, in a case where a debtor has continuously performed several acts of disposal of property, it shall be determined according to whether each act causes insolvency. However, in a case where there are special circumstances to regard such a series of acts as a single act, it shall be determined as a whole whether the other party to the disposition is identical, whether the disposition is close to time, whether the other party to the disposition is specially related, and whether the other party and the debtor are the same as the other party’s motive or opportunity for the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da7795, Jul. 22, 2005).

In light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by the purport of the above recognition, the above fact and the entire argument, namely, Cheongsung paid the amount received from the transfer of this case to 308,405,149 won, and in view of the fact that the parties to the contract of this case are identical to Maisung and the Defendants, and that each payment of this case was made at the time close to the time, it is reasonable to determine whether each of the instant contract of this case constitutes a cause of harm as a whole as a whole. However, in full view of the contents and the purport of each of the evidence No. 6, the total amount of the active property (real estate and deposits) of Maisung at the time of donation to ○○○ on July 25, 2012 was over KRW 332,95,930, which is equivalent to the transfer income tax of this case until the time the transfer of this case occurred, and the fact that the status of debts exceeded the present.

If the debtor causes the debtor to exceed his/her obligation through donation to another person, such an act becomes a fraudulent act, and the debtor is also recognized as the debtor's intent to understand the terms and conditions.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, each of the instant gift agreements entered into between Dog and the Defendants should be revoked, and as a restoration to its original state, Defendant ○○○ is obligated to pay 136 million won to the Plaintiff, Defendant 150 million won to the chi○○, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment with respect to each of the above amounts.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted.