beta
Text
1. The sales contract concluded on March 11, 2016 between the Defendant and B is revoked.
2. The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From May 1, 2008 to November 7, 2014, the head of Seodaemun-gu Tax Office issued a notice to pay KRW 411,339,220 in the aggregate of the global income tax for the year 203, 2004, 206, and 2013, and the global income tax for the year 2013. On February 8, 2018, the global income tax for arrears (including additional dues) as of February 8, 2018 is KRW 719,416,590.
B. B filed a lawsuit (Seoul Eastern District Court 2007Kadan12822) claiming the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant apartment against seven previous owners, such as C, etc. of the instant apartment (attached Form) and received a favorable judgment on August 14, 2007, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 7, 2007.
B did not complete the registration of transfer of ownership in accordance with the above final judgment for a long period. On March 11, 2016, the instant sales contract concluded with the Defendant for the instant apartment, which was KRW 200,000,000, and was fully paid by March 18, 2016, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the same day, following the completion of the registration of transfer of ownership in the Defendant’s future on March 22, 2016.
C. After January 2, 2017, the Defendant leased the instant apartment to D, who is an son of B, with the lease deposit of KRW 280,000,000 and the lease term of KRW 6 months from February 21, 2017. D shall file a move-in report with the instant apartment on February 22, 2017 and received a fixed date.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, 7, 9-11, Eul evidence No. 15, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The act of selling the apartment of this case, which is the property practically only owned by the Plaintiff B in excess of the debt, to the Defendant, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, which is the creditor, and the sales contract of this case must be revoked.
However, since it is difficult to return originals due to the tenant having opposing power over the apartment of this case after the sales contract of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 296,00,000 for the value of the apartment of this case due to its reinstatement.
B. Defendant 1 B is the instant case.