Revocation of Fraudulent Act

An act of transferring ownership on the ground of sale constitutes a fraudulent act by knowing that it constitutes an act of harming the creditor, and also constitutes a fraudulent act by deeming that the defendant was aware of such fact.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation

1. The sales contract concluded on June 8, 2005 with respect to ○○○○○○○-dong 280-1 ○○ apartment 101 Dong 1601 was revoked between the non-party Jung-si and the defendant.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of cancelling ownership transfer, which was completed on June 8, 2005 by the receipt of No. 32400 on the real estate stated in the above 1. 1. to the non-party 1 ○○○○.

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

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

Grounds for Claim

1. Relevant statutes;

The provisions of Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act (referred to as "the Act specified by Act No. 6805 of Dec. 31, 2002") may apply mutatis mutandis to the court for the revocation of fraudulent act in case where the defaulted taxpayer performs a legal act for the purpose of property right to be exempted from the collection of national taxes in executing the disposition on default."

2. Formation of tax claims;

The director of the tax office of ○○○ under the Plaintiff’s control was the representative of the non-party 1’s spouse ○○○ and the ○○○○ Construction, which was one of the oligopolistic shareholders, was the non-party 28,91,520 on the payment period of March 31, 2005 with respect to the non-party 28,91,520 on the non-party 1,346,940 on the payment period of the non-party 31 on May 31, 2005 on the non-party 205 on the non-party 2 on the non-party 1’s non-party 2 on the non-party 30-party 2 on the non-party 2’s payment period of the non-party 1 on the non-party 2 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 2 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 2’s payment date of the value-added tax on the non-party 2 on the first-party 2 on the payment date.

3. Fraudulent act;

소외 정○○는 본인이 과점주주로 있는 ○○건설(주)의 체납과 관련하여 본인에게 출자자에 대한 제2차 납세의무자 지정되어 체납처분이 진행 될 것을 알고서 체납처분을 회피할 의도로 ○○건설(주)의 출자자에 대한 제2차 납세의무 지정일 2005. 11. 9일 이전인 2005. 6. 8일 소외 정○○의 유일한 재산인 별지목록기재 부동산(이하 "이 사건 부동산" 이라 합니다.)을 본인의 친부(親父)인 피고 정☆☆에게 ○○지방법원 ○○등기소에 접수번호 32400호로 매매를 원인으로 하는 소유권이전등기를 해 주었습니다.

4. The intention of an injury.

A. Nonparty 1’s intention to commit suicide by Nonparty 1.

소외 정○○는 ○○건설(주)의 과점주주로 ○○건설(주)의 체납과 관련하여 본인에게 출자자에 대한 제2차 납세의무가 지정되어 체납처분이 집행될 것이라는 고도의 개연성이 존재하는 상태에서 유일한 재산을 본인의 친부(親父)인 피고 정☆☆에게 매매를 원인으로 하여 소유권을 이전하여 준 것으로 보아, 소외 정○○는 이 사건 부동산을 피고에게 증여할 당시 조세채권자인 원고를 해함을 알았다고 할 것입니다.

B. Non-party Kim ○-○'s insolvent

The non-party, ○○, was in a bad condition, since he had no other property at the time of transferring ownership on the ground of sale and purchase of the instant real estate.

5. Bad faith of the defendant

피고는 소외 정○○의 친부(親父)이며, 소외 정○○에게는 이 사건 부동산외에는 다른 재산이 없었으므로 피고가 이 사건 부동산을 매수할 당시 이 매수행위가 사해행위라는 사실 및 소외 정○○의 사해의사를 알았다고 보아야 할 것입니다.

6. Conclusion;

In light of the above facts, the act of the non-party 1's transfer of ownership on the ground of sale to the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act committed with the knowledge that it would prejudice the creditor, and the defendant was also aware of such fact. Thus, the plaintiff was requested to cancel the sale contract as stated in the purport of the claim and to cancel the transfer of ownership due to restitution.