The act of donation of money to the spouse under excess of debt shall be a fraudulent act.

The act of donation of money to the spouse under excess of debt shall be a fraudulent act.

2015 Gohap52134

Korea

○○

November 18, 2015

December 23, 2015

1. Revocation of each gift agreement concluded between the defendant and thisA with respect to each of the money listed in the separate sheet No. 1.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 250,000,000 won with an annual interest of 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Formation of a taxation claim

1) From May 4, 2002 to “B” company (BBP) from May 4, 2002, thisA operated a company that manufactures and exports its products with the trade name of “B” company, and closed the business on August 9, 2010.

2) In operating a “BB company”, the head of thisA filed a return by reducing the amount received in foreign exchange and omitting part of the amount of revenue. From February 2012, the head of this tax office made an investigation into the individual workplace of thisA from around 006 to 2009, revealing that thisA filed a return by omitting part of the amount of revenue subject to global income tax payment from 2006 to 2009, and subsequently, on April 1, 2012, the head of this tax office notified thisA to pay the total income tax of KRW 987,385,714 (hereinafter “instant tax claim”).

B. Deposit of each money listed in the separate sheet No. 1 with the defendant account

ThisA, from April 14, 2010 to July 28, 2010, in operating a 'BB company' in its bank account, deposited the total of KRW 250,000,000 as shown in the separate sheet 1, and deposited each of the deposits in the Defendant's bank account (hereinafter referred to as "each of the deposits in this case") on the same day.

(c) the financial status of thisA;

At the time of each deposit of this case, the collective housing price as of January 1, 2010 is the active property of this case.

92,000,000 real estate stated in the separate sheet Nos. 2, 987,385 in total as small property;

714 won was the instant tax liability.

[Reasons for Recognition]

The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Gap evidence 12 through 16, and the whole pleadings

Purport

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The Plaintiff’s act of making each of the instant deposits against the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act as gift.

For this reason, the cancellation and the return of the money received as a donation to the original state shall be

The Defendant appears to have known that there was each of the instant deposited money between thisA and the Defendant around October 2013 that the Plaintiff had purchased the EE apartment that is currently residing in thisA and the Defendant, by explaining the details and source of funds, and demanding the submission of a sales contract, etc., the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit was unlawful since it was filed on March 26, 2015, which was after the lapse of the exclusion period of one year thereafter.

In the exercise of the creditor's right of revocation, the creditor, who is the starting point of the exclusion period, shall be liable for the revocation.

on the date when the obligee became aware of the requirements for the obligee's right of revocation, that is, the obligor's prejudice to the obligee.

Being aware of the fraudulent act, it means the date on which it becomes aware of the fact that the fraudulent act was committed.

It is not sufficient to say that a person without interest has deposited the property, and the juristic act is not sufficient to do so.

In short of joint security of claims by an act of undermining creditors

shall not be able to fully satisfy the claims, provided that the joint security in the state is more deficient than one story;

Furthermore, it is required to know the fact that the debtor had the intention to harm (Supreme Court).

See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da15265 delivered on June 13, 2000, see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da15265 delivered on June 13, 200

An obligee is the other party to a revocation suit (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da47852 Decided October 29, 2009).

see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

No evidence exists to deem that the Plaintiff immediately became aware of the existence of each of the instant deposit acts or that such act constituted a fraudulent act and was aware of the intent of deception to thisA on October 2013, 2013, which explained the developments leading up to the purchase of the EE apartment that is currently residing in this case and the source of funds, and demanded that the Plaintiff submit a sales contract, etc. as to the instant case. Rather, according to the evidence No. 13 and No. 14, according to each of the evidence No. 13 and No. 14, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff requested to provide financial transaction information to high-amount delinquent taxpayers, including thisA, at various financial institutions on May 8, 2014, and received the reply, and this was aware of each of the instant deposit transactions to the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s main defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

Tax liabilities, when the requirements for taxation prescribed by law are satisfied, for the establishment of such tax liabilities.

Tax authorities or taxpayers are not required to do any special act, and the taxpayer is taxed.

It is naturally established without the need to recognize the fulfillment of the requirements (Supreme Court on May 14, 2009).

High Court Decision 2008Da84458, etc.

In light of the above legal principles, the taxation claims of this case by the Health Board, E.A. are national tax basic.

When the taxable period is terminated pursuant to Article 21 (1) 1 of the Act, the liability for tax payment shall be established, and the income shall be earned.

Pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Tax Law, the taxation period of income tax is from January 1 to December 31, 200;

The global income tax from 2006 to 2009, the taxation claim of this case, as seen earlier.

The liability for payment was established on the last day of each year, and each of the deposits in this case is the General Corporation.

From April 14, 2010 to July 28, 2010, after the date of the final establishment of the obligation for acquisition tax payment.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case against EA is subject to the obligee’s right of revocation.

C. Although this global income tax was notified to thisA on April 1, 2012, it was notified to thisA of the additional notice amount of global income tax.

Even if such circumstance does not interfere with the establishment of the preserved claim.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

1) Relevant legal principles

With respect to a creditor seeking revocation of a fraudulent act's assertion that an act of payment to the debtor's beneficiary is a donation, the beneficiary is asserting that it has been received under another name;

This constitutes a denial of the creditor's assertion, and thus, the payment of the above money constitutes a fraudulent act.

for the purpose of making a payment of such money to the extent that such act constitutes a gift; and

The burden of proof on this case is on the part of the assertion of fraudulent act (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5588 delivered on May 31, 2007).

28686. Also, the debtor donates his own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation.

Unless there exist special circumstances, such an act constitutes a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 19 May 11, 2006).

[Judgment 205Da62167]

2) Whether each of the instant deposits constitutes a gift

ThisAA is the aggregate of the revenues accruing from the operation of the BB Company as seen earlier.

250,000,000 won shall be withdrawn from his own deposit account as shown in the separate sheet No. 1 and the person on the same day.

The payment was made to the account in the name of the bank, and the payment was made to the account;

In light of the method of payment, amount of payment, etc., the AA enters the case, except in special circumstances.

It is reasonable to view that the Defendant donated a total of KRW 250,000,000 to the Defendant through an act of gold (hereinafter the above case)

The term "deposit contract of this case" is "each donation contract of this case".

In regard to this, the defendant argued that the amount received from thisA was not received as a donation, but as a living expenses, children's education expenses, etc., the defendant did not have any specific evidence to recognize that the amount received from thisA was paid as living expenses, children's education expenses, etc. Rather, prior to the conclusion of each gift contract of this case, the defendant had to purchase the EE apartment No. 00,000,000 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") No. 00, Mar. 24, 2010 to 298,000,000 won. This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit since this part of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant paid 250,000,000 won to the defendant through each donation of this case as the above apartment purchase fund, so that the defendant can acquire the ownership of the above apartment.

(iii) the excess of the liabilities of thisA.

According to the facts as seen earlier, at the time of each gift contract of this case, the gift contract of this case is active property of this case.

As seen earlier, real estate and this case are listed in the separate sheet No. 2 of the apartment price of 92,000,000

The sum of KRW 250,000,000 paid to the Defendant through a gift contract was KRW 342,00,000,000;

In the case of a small property, the pertinent tax liability of KRW 987,385,714 in total was established, so small property is small.

W. 645,385,714 Won 645,714 pro rata property (negative 987,385,714 - Pro rata property)

It would have been in excess of the amount exceeding 342,00,000 won in total.

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, each gift contract of this case shall reduce the active properties of the AA, thereby resulting in the existing debts.

By deepening the excessive situation, it is the fraudulent act that causes damage to the creditor.

(c) A deceased noble doctor;

Each gift contract of this case constitutes a gratuitous act, and there was an objection at the time of each gift contract of this case.

In light of the property status of the Gu, the relationship between the two parties, etc., this Agreement shall apply to each of the gift contracts of this case

It is reasonable to see that the defendant's bad faith as beneficiary was known that it constitutes such fraudulent act, and the presumption of the beneficiary's bad faith

See Supreme Court Decision 95Da51908 delivered on May 23, 1997, etc.

D. Determination as to the defendant's bona fide defense

1) As to this, the Defendant: (a) around April 2010, each of the instant donations was made by this case; and (b) around

It was not known that there was a tax liability, and after each gift of this case, it was imposed upon thisA after each gift of this case

Since both the unpaid customs duties and the violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act have been paid in full, a bona fide beneficiary.

I argue that it falls under section 1.

2) However, the following circumstances, which may be acknowledged by the overall purport of the evidence and arguments mentioned above, namely, (1) between the defendant and his husband and wife, and thisA is between the defendant and his husband, and the defendant from April 14, 2010 to 2010.

7. Until June 28, 2010, a total of KRW 250,00,00 among the incomes earned in operating a “B company” was donated to the Defendant on the ground of a business depression on August 10, 2010. (2) The Defendant found the materials purchased from the Plaintiff around February 2006 to around 2010, 206, after being notified of the decision prior to the head of the tax office to which the Plaintiff belongs, the total of 30,00,000 won was disposed of as the total of 30,00,00 won, and the total amount of 30,000,00 won was not expected to be established. However, in light of the fact that the reported amount of foreign exchange revenue in 206 to the Defendant was 791,193,438 won, 207, 306, 307, 47, 2096, 1967, 2096, 367, 7, 2064, 27, 16868.

ThisA is suspected of not having been trying to evade income tax due to the continuous and repeated reduction of foreign exchange income amount by filing a return, and (3) thisA is suspected of having properly stated the total amount of income in the return from the time of filing the return on global income in the initial taxable period, and evidence and evidence of necessary expense calculation, particulars of goods supplied while conducting business, etc.

In addition, it did not have been submitted to the head of the competent tax office.

5.A, which has been engaged in a personal business from around the point of view, is the total number of tax liability at the relevant taxable period.

The material is not equipped with the purchase data without reporting the amount of money properly;

It would have been sufficiently recognizable that the tax liability of this case would have existed.

In light of the fact that the defendant acquired ownership of the apartment of this case in the sole name with the money remitted by this A through each gift contract of this case, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant's assertion alone is a good faith to reverse the presumption of bad faith, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(e) Revocation of fraudulent act and duty to restore it;

Therefore, each gift contract of this case must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and its recovery therefrom.

The defendant is entitled to KRW 250,000,000 for the plaintiff and the next day from the day after this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

There is a duty to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

section 3.