Property division contract of this case constitutes fraudulent act

It is reasonable to deem that the division of property of this case against the portion exceeding one half of the real estate of this case constitutes a fraudulent act with knowledge that it harms the general creditors, and it is presumed that the defendant who is the beneficiary is a beneficiary.

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

2013 Ghana 503727 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Han ○

13.03.13

2014.03.27

1. The contract for the division of property between the defendant and thisA on March 5, 2012, concluded between the defendant and the non-indicted 1/2 of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet, shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall comply with the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership completed in accordance with subparagraph 3** of the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on March 19, 2012, with respect to one-half portion of the real estate listed in the attached list to the above A.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. Two minutes of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The contract for the division of property between the defendant and EA on March 5, 2012, which was concluded between the defendant and EA on the real estate stated in the separate sheet, shall be revoked, and the defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the transfer of ownership, which was completed by EA, to the above EA on March 19, 2012.

1. Basic facts

A. Seoul**Gu***** apartment** Dong*7** (hereinafter referred to as "real estate") was acquired in KRW 1.7 billion, and was transferred in KRW 2.8 billion on December 8, 2009 to the director of the Nam-gu Tax Office on May 31, 2010.

B. On August 1, 2011, the director of the Namyang District Tax Office decided to pay each transfer income tax of KRW 278,398,150 on August 31, 201, on the grounds that the said transfer does not correspond to the requirements for non-taxation of one household of capital gains tax (CC died on April 2, 2010) to B, EK, and EA, as of August 31, 2011, the payment deadline was set and notified to 278,398,150, and among them, the notice to A reached this time.

C. The capital gains tax that thisA does not pay in connection with the said capital gains tax is KRW 350,224,720, including additional dues, as of March 20, 2013.

D. Meanwhile, on June 27, 1996, thisA and the Defendant married with one woman under the chain and married life, and married with agreement on March 5, 2012.

E. ThisA completed the registration of transfer of ownership on November 29, 201 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”), which is the only property under one’s own name, due to the trade promise on November 29, 201, and the Defendant has completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the property division (hereinafter referred to as “property division of this case”) on March 19, 201, on March 19, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 8, 10, 13, and 14; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Formation of preserved claims

According to the above facts, since transfer income tax claims were generated by the decision of the director of the Namyang Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control before division of property (hereinafter “instant taxation claims”) prior to this case’s division of property, the instant taxation claims are preserved claims. The Defendant, as to ① forges documents by CC and this B, a punishment of NA, with no awareness, are transferred * The transfer of real estate shall not be levied on this CC; ② This transfer income tax shall not be imposed on this CC, and the transfer income tax shall not be imposed on this B because this case’s ownership of the real estate was concealed by inheritance of all the property. First, considering the Defendant’s principal claim, it is hard to see that there is no substantial and apparent defect in taxation claims to those who do not have any factual relations such as legal relations or income subject to taxation, but it is difficult to see that there is no objective reason to believe that the transfer of the real estate is invalid until the appellate court’s final judgment is made 13rd because it is difficult to see that there is no such objective reason to believe that the transfer of taxation claims are invalid.

(2) On the part of the defendant's assertion, there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that thisA does not actually acquire inherited property and even if it does not succeed to the obligation to pay taxes, such as the person who has renounced inheritance, etc., the defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.

B. The establishment and scope of fraudulent act

1) Parties’ assertion

A) The plaintiff's assertion

ThisA transferred the instant real property to the Defendant on the ground of the division of property in excess of the debt, and as long as the negative property at the time (the tax claim of this case and the principal of the loans against the PP bank as the principal of the loans against the tax claim of this case and the loans against the PP bank) exceeded the positive property (280 million won), it is not subject to the division of property, and since the division of property of this case where the only positive property is transferred to the Defendant lacks reasonableness, the division of property of this case should be revoked, and the registration of transfer of ownership of this case should be cancelled as the restoration to the original state.

B) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant was transferred the instant real property by division of property, consolation money, child support, etc., upon the divorce between thisA and thisA. Considering that the deceasedCC was hospitalized after 2009, and as a result, the Defendant did not frequently look at the family while leaving home and hospitalized a hospital, and that the Defendant decided to raise the child after divorce, the above division of property was made within the extent of reasonableness, and thus, is not a fraudulent act.

2) Determination

In divorce, division of property can be divided to the extent of the nature of the benefit to compensate for mental damage (defensive) caused by the division’s failure to take account of the amount of division and other circumstances where the division of property is in excess of the debt, or where the division of property becomes insolvent, the amount and method of division may be determined including the amount of the debt to be borne by the division, and even if the division of property has contributed to the formation of the common property, the amount and method of division, including the amount of the debt to be borne by the division, and the amount of the debt to be borne by the division, even if the division of property is insolvent by the division of property and reduces the joint security of the general creditor by the division of property, the amount and method of division may be limited to the extent that it is reasonable against the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, and the amount and method of division may not be limited to the portion where the division of property is revoked by the division of property in excess of the amount and method.

Therefore, in view of the fact that the division of property in this case is subject to creditor's right of revocation as a fraudulent act, and the real estate in this case was the only property of this case at the time of divorce between this case and this defendant, while the debt of this case reaches 278,398,150 won as the principal of the tax claim in this case, and there was a mortgage loan of 50 million won, barring any special circumstance, the division of property in this case is too excessive to the extent that it cannot be deemed reasonable against the purport of Article 839-2 (2) of the Civil Code, and thus, it is subject to creditor's right of revocation as a fraudulent act.

Furthermore, considering the following circumstances as to the scope of revocation, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 12-1, 2, and 12-1, and the overall purport of the arguments, the defendant does not assert any particular opinion regarding the previous flight of this Act, such as claiming that thisCC renounced her family due to alcohol addiction after 2009 caused an accident, and thisA has appointed an attorney after 2009 and made a claim against thisB for division of inherited property, and thisB has been working for the maintenance and formation of common property without any clear evidence to acknowledge liability of thisA (the provision of No. 2 of this case No. 10000, Oct. 9, 2009 or Oct. 8, 2009). It is not consistent with the defendant's claim for division of real property of this case to the extent that it is not consistent with the defendant's claim for division of property of this case with the real property of this case to the extent of 00,000 won other than the defendant's claim for division of property of this case.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that this case’s division of property as to the portion exceeding 1/2 of the real estate of this case constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that this case’s division of property constitutes an ordinary obligees, and the defendant’s bad faith is presumed to be presumed to be a beneficiary (the defendant is not aware of this case’s taxation claim of this case with the knowledge that this case’s taxation claim of this case was not known or the defendant was a bona fide beneficiary, but as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the above recognition is reversed or the presumption is reversed).

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant property division agreement concluded with respect to one half of the instant real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, is revoked, and the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for registration cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case with respect to one half of the instant real estate to its original state.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.