It can not be deemed as a fraudulent act under a gift contract or a deposit under a title trust contract only with the money to be paid to the spouse.

Whether the act of making a deposit is a gift contract or a title trust contract with a deposit holder. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof, so it cannot be evaluated as a fraudulent act because it is difficult to readily conclude the act of making a deposit as a gift contract or a deposit holder title trust

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration of Fraudulent Act

Suwon District Court of Suwon District 2016Gahap203267 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

00

on December 22, 2019

on October 05, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. As of the date of the closing of argument in this case, the Plaintiff holds KRW 764,516,970 in total for two delinquent taxation claims against the Defendant’s husband* as of the date of the closing of argument in this case (the grounds for the occurrence of claims are as follows. The unit source is as shown below).

B. L**: (a) the Corporation admitted 00 m20 m2, 00 m2, 000 m2, nnam-si, nnam-si, 000 m2, 000 m2 in order to be incorporated into a 000 housing project zone, which is a public project project; and (b) the Corporation won 1,695,821,400 m2 deposited by this Court No. 0000 m2, 000 m200 m2, n200; (c) won was won in a lawsuit with the least interference with the law and received 1,69,083,801 m2, including the interest on the above compensation; (d) the remaining 694,169,462 m2

deposit in the account of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "deposit in this case").

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The deposit of this case was made in the absence of the highest***, which constitutes a gift to the defendant, and it constitutes a preliminary trust agreement with the defendant and constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff.

Therefore, the above deposit shall be revoked, and the defendant shall pay all the amount of the deposit and delay damages to the plaintiff as the reinstatement.

3. Determination

Although the Defendant did not dispute the instant deposited money itself, the Defendant, who was the bad credit holder, ** was using the Defendant’s account, and the most** was using the Defendant’s account, and the Defendant did not use the deposited money, and thus did not claim that it is not a gift contract or a deposit placed trust contract, but a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving whether the deposited act in this case constitutes a gift contract or a deposit holder title trust contract (the Plaintiff had sufficient time and opportunity to prove it to the Plaintiff until the conclusion of the pleadings in this case). The evidence alone, which is sufficient to reverse the Defendant’s argument, cannot be evaluated as a fraudulent act because it is difficult to readily conclude the deposited act as a gift contract or deposit holder title trust contract.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion without determining the remainder of the requirements.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.