Revocation, etc. of Fraudulent Act

The non-party in arrears transferred the real estate of this case to his female members, and the defendant was also aware of the fact in the state of insolvency. Thus, it constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

1. Indication of claim;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

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

Cheongwon of the Gu

1. The relationship between Nonparty ○○ and the Defendant

From October 1, 1999 to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a national tax payer, was closed on October 31, 2005, Nonparty ○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted ○○”) was operating the scrap metal wholesale business, and the Defendant is the Nonparty’s birth honor. (A evidence 11-2)

2. Formation of tax claims;

A. The non-party did not pay the scheduled value-added tax amount (the date on which the tax liability was established: March 31, 2005) in January 2005 while operating the above "○○○○○", and there was a fact that the non-party was either reported only on the return of the value-added tax (the date on which the tax liability was established: June 30, 2005) and did not pay the related value-added tax.

B. Accordingly, the director of the ○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office notified 66,889,390 won for the non-payment of the amount of value-added tax that was finalized on September 30, 2005, but did not pay 52,567,590 won for the non-party's non-payment of the non-party's other property, except for the amount partially appropriated for the public auction proceeds. The non-party's payment of the non-party's other property is delinquent. The non-payment of 43,119,430 won for the non-payment of 53,726,750 won for the non-payment of the value-added tax notified on April 25, 2005.

In addition, the non-party fails to pay 24,280,480 won, 63,840 won, 63,840 won, 740 won, 9,745, 740 won, and 205, notified by the due date for payment on January 31, 2006, which was notified by the non-party by the due date for payment on December 31, 2005 and notified by the non-party. This is due to the non-party’s failure to pay the global income tax amount of 24,360,490 won, which was notified by the due date for payment on November 30, 2005, as the non-party notified by the due date for payment on November 30, 2005.

In addition, in relation to the truck transportation business operated by the non-party under the name of the "○○○○○○○○○○", the non-party's head of the tax office fails to pay the amount of KRW 1,292,450 which was notified on April 25, 2005 as the due date for payment of the value-added tax amount of KRW 1,292,450, which was notified on October 31, 2005 as the due date for payment of KRW 683,360, which was notified on October 31, 2005.

(A) Evidence No. 1 1 through 8, "Inquiry about the details of notification by taxpayer," "value-added tax correction resolution," "decision resolution on global income tax, etc."

C. Therefore, the Non-Party is delinquent due to the Non-Party’s failure to pay KRW 175,32,430 (including additional dues) national taxes, such as value-added tax, up to now.

3. Fraudulent act;

A. The Foreign Party received, as above, a notice of scheduled value-added tax (the date on which the tax liability is established: March 31, 2005) on April 25, 2005 at the payment time limit of 1, 2005, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with No. 6291 of July 27, 2005 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate in this case") owned by the Defendant, who is its birth, in order to avoid seizure, etc. of property due to the disposition on default, knowing that it is highly probable that the amount of national taxes will be imposed in the near future by paying without the fixed value-added tax (the date on which the tax liability is established: June 30, 2005) on the grounds of sale on July 1, 2005, and completed on July 27, 2005 as the receipt number No. 6291 of July 27, 2005.

B. In light of the fact that the acquisitor of the instant real estate is the birth of the Nonparty residing in ○○○○○○ City, and that the Nonparty did not pay at all national taxes notified prior to the date of the fraudulent act even though he transferred several parcels of real estate other than the instant real estate, the act of selling and selling the instant real estate is not the Nonparty’s payment of national taxes imposed on him, and it is the most effective act or fraudulent act to evade the Plaintiff’s compulsory execution, who is a tax claim due to the disposition

(A) Evidence No. 3 of this Act, 'The List of Property of Delinquents'

4. Whether the pertinent real estate was the primary property

A. The director of ○○ Tax Office, under the Plaintiff’s control, investigated the property of the Nonparty for the purpose of the disposition on default, and it was the only possible to appropriate the instant real estate in the event of fraudulent act of the instant real estate, such as the evidence No. 2 of the attached documents, such as the data on the property of the delinquent taxpayer.

B. In addition to the instant real property, the Nonparty’s property was owned by the head of ○○○ Tax Office’s attached ○○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, 258 square meters prior to the ○○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○,258 square meters, but was not appropriated for national taxes other than KRW 50,206,620 as a result of the public sale on May 26, 2006, and even when appropriating the entire amount of the instant real property to the national taxes, the amount falls short of the limit (i.e.,

5. The intention of an injury.

The non-party had already been liable to pay national taxes upon receiving a tax notice, and the non-party's registration of transfer of ownership of the real estate of this case, which is the only property owned by himself, was known in the near future, with the knowledge that it is highly probable that national taxes will be notified in the near future, would have known that it would prejudice the plaintiff at the time of sale. Accordingly, the plaintiff could not obtain satisfaction of tax claims.

6. Bad faith of the defendant

The defendant is the birth of the non-party, and the non-party knew that there was no other property available for national taxes except for the real estate in this case, and the defendant also should be deemed to have known the fact that this sale was a fraudulent act at the time of acquisition of the real estate in this case, and that the non-party's intention of deception was known.

7. The date on which he becomes aware of a fraudulent act;

The plaintiff was issued a certified copy of the registry on August 30, 2006 and became aware of the fraudulent act of this case in order to verify the details of the transfer of the non-party's real estate in order to execute the disposition on default against the non-party.

8. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the sales contract for the instant real estate between the Nonparty and the Defendant was concluded with the knowledge that the Nonparty would be exempted from the disposition for arrears related to national taxes, such as the high-value added tax, which would be additionally imposed in the near future when the Nonparty had a duty to pay national taxes upon receiving a tax payment notice, and the Defendant also constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge of its purport.

In accordance with Article 406 of the Civil Code and Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act, the plaintiff has cancelled the sales contract for the real estate of this case, and has caused the claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration due to restitution.