Whether the act of transferring real property constitutes a fraudulent act

In light of the establishment of a taxation claim, the taxation claim of this case was established and the defendant's bad faith is presumed, so the act of transferring the real estate of this case constitutes a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act)

Civil Code § 406. Revocation of fraudulent act

1. With respect to real estate listed in the attached list:

A. The sales contract that was concluded on October 1, 2003 by the Defendant and the ○○○○ (○○○○-○○○○○○○○) was revoked on October 1, 2003.

B. The Defendant shall implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of cancellation of the registration of the transfer of rights to the Plaintiff, which was completed on December 5, 2003 by the receipt No. 53169 in the court ○○○ registry office of this Court

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From April 1, 1997 to December 31, 2001, ○○ Fisheries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Fisheries”) was operated as a representative director.

B. However, on March 31, 200, 200, ○○○○○ Tax Office, which was affiliated with the Plaintiff, omitted the purchase amount of KRW 259,471,000 when filing a corporate tax return for the year 199.

C. However, around September 2003, 2003, the ○○○ Tax Office revealed the above facts, and disposed of the money corresponding thereto as a bonus for recognition of gambling ○○, and made a notice of change of income to ○○○○○○○, while making it known to the head of ○○ Tax Office.

D. Accordingly, on July 1, 2004, the head of ○○○ Tax Office imposed and notified the global income tax of KRW 116,689,010 (hereinafter “instant tax claim”) on ○○○○ on July 1, 2004 by setting the due date for payment by July 31, 2004.

E. Meanwhile, on October 1, 2003, Park○ concluded a sales contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the real estate listed in the [Attachment List (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), one’s sole property, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s future on December 5, 2003 as the receipt of this court ○○○ registry office (hereinafter “○○ registry office”).

Facts unrelated to evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12, the purpose of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, around March 31, 2000 when ○○ Fisheries filed a corporate tax return by omitting the purchase amount, there was a high probability of the establishment of the tax claim of this case in the near future through a series of procedures, such as ○○○ Tax Office and ○○○ Tax Office’s notice of change in income amount, etc., which made it clear that ○○○○○ Tax Office and ○○○ Tax Office established the tax claim of this case. In fact, the tax claim of this case was established in the near future, and its probability has been realized in the near future, and the tax claim of this case has been established. Accordingly, the tax claim of this case can be the creditor’s right of revocation. In addition, since ○○○ was aware in advance of the fact that ○○○○ was subject to income tax in advance during the above series of processes, it is difficult to recognize the creditor’s complete satisfaction of the claim due to the decrease in assets due to the act of this case’s sales contract of this case, and it is presumed that ○○○○○○ is a beneficiary.

Therefore, the sales contract of this case shall be revoked as a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, who is the creditor, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer as the restoration to its original state to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

In regard to this, the defendant, without knowing the fact that the defendant lent retirement allowances to Park ○○ and the tax claim of this case was imposed, was transferred to the above real estate as payment in lieu of the above claim, so the presumption of bad faith has been reversed.

There is no evidence to acknowledge the lending of the above money by the defendant, and the above assertion is without merit without examining other points.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted because all of the claims of this case are reasonable.