The defendant acquired the real estate of this case as the share of property division for the external limit of the delinquent taxpayer.

It is reasonable to view that the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate in the future between the Plaintiff (the State) and the delinquent taxpayer prior to the establishment of a tax claim against the delinquent taxpayer as the share to divide the property of the delinquent taxpayer’s external rating or to preserve the property, etc., which does not constitute a fraudulent act or constitutes a bona fide beneficiary.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2011 Gohap 108205 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

The ZZ

October 30, 2012

November 20, 2012

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The contract of donation concluded on March 31, 2009 between the defendant and the non-party B shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment. The contract of donation concluded on November 5, 2010 between the defendant and the non-party B with respect to each of the ancillary properties listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2 shall be revoked. The defendant shall be revoked with respect to the non-party B, and the real properties listed in the separate sheet 1 shall be transferred to the non-party B, and the registration procedure of cancellation of each ownership transfer registration completed on November 5, 2010 with respect to the real property listed in the separate sheet 2 shall be implemented.

1. Basic facts

A. Around March 201, a mid-term regional tax office under the Plaintiff-based regional tax office conducted a special tax investigation into the CCC industry, the DDR Round, and the EE Integrated Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the above three companies collectively referred to as “non-party companies”). As a result of the said special tax investigation, the non-party companies made a false used vehicle sales contract without having purchased the actual used cars, and made a false application for the input tax deduction of recycled and waste resources, and the corresponding sales amount was unfairly paid value-added tax by applying the zero-value tax rate by filing a report on export amount. Accordingly, the above mid-term regional tax office notified the Plaintiff-based director of the tax office of the above taxation data.

B. According to the taxation data notified by the Central Tax Office on June 2, 2011, the said director of the tax office determined and notified the non-party company of KRW 000 as the value-added tax and corporate tax from 2004 to 2010 on June 30, 201.

C. On June 2, 2011, the said director of the tax office, who owned the stocks of Nonparty Company from 95 to 100%, designated a shipB constituting oligopolistic shareholder as the secondary taxpayer, and notified Nonparty B of approximately KRW 13,600,000 among the value added taxes and corporate tax as of June 30, 201.

D. In the process of acquiring 00 OO apartment Nos. 00 and 000 O apartment, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the director of the regional regional tax office under the Plaintiff confirmed that the Defendant received the gift of KRW 000,000, the sum of KRW 000,000, and KRW 000,000 on May 12, 2009 (hereinafter “the instant monetary donation contract”), and issued a disposition on gift tax, and the Defendant paid the said gift tax to the Plaintiff on July 29, 2011.

E. On November 5, 2010, PB entered into each gift agreement with the Defendant on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as "each of the real estate in this case") (hereinafter referred to as "the above gift agreement in this case"), and on November 5, 2010, PB completed each of the above gift agreements on each of the above real estate (hereinafter referred to as "the ownership transfer registration in this case").

[Reasons for Recognition]

The facts without dispute, and the entries in Gap 1 through 8 (including each number, if any) and the whole purport of the pleading.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff, B, is established on the date on which the corporate tax and value-added tax liability of the Nonparty Company, the principal taxpayer, is established pursuant to Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the claim against the Plaintiff, B, is established on March 31, 2009, the cash donation date of the instant case, approximately KRW 000, and approximately KRW 000 on November 5, 2010, which is the date of the instant real estate donation, had already existed prior to each of the instant gift contracts, and thus, there was a high probability of becoming the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation or establishing the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff, B, in the near future, and such probability has been realized. Therefore, the claim against the obligee’s right of revocation may become the preserved

2) The Plaintiff had the above taxation claim against the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff entered into each of the instant gift agreements with the Defendant in excess of the obligation, and the Plaintiff should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, which constitutes an infringement on the claims of ordinary creditors including the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the Defendant and the Plaintiff are obliged to pay back to the original state and pay the Plaintiff 00 left and its delay damages, and to implement the procedure for registration cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case.

B. Defendant’s assertion

AB was not in excess of the obligation at the time of each of the instant gift contracts, and the each of the instant gift contracts by AB was concluded without intention of ordinary creditors to preserve joint security, and is not considered a fraudulent act. In addition, the Defendant is a bona fide beneficiary.

3. Determination

A. Whether there is a preserved claim

1) Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides for the secondary tax liability of investors with regard to whether the Plaintiff’s tax claim against the shipB was established prior to each of the instant gift contracts, and Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides for the secondary tax liability of investors in cases where the assets of the corporation are insufficient to cover the national taxes, additional dues, and disposition fee for arrears that are imposed or payable by the corporation, the person who falls under the oligopolistic shareholder as of the date on which the national tax liability is established shall be subject to secondary tax liability for the shortage. Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the person who falls under the oligopolistic shareholder, etc. on the date on which the primary

In order to establish the secondary tax liability, it can be seen as the provision that sets forth investors, and in order to establish the secondary tax liability, there must be the fact that it meets the requirements for the main taxpayer’s default, etc., so the time of establishment is at least after the expiration of the “time limit for payment of the main tax liability” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du13083, Apr. 15, 2005; 2010Du13234, May 9, 2012). Therefore, the secondary tax liability set up in BB shall be deemed to be after June 30, 201, the time limit for payment of the value-added tax and corporate tax of the non-party company, the main taxpayer, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against BB, which is already established before each gift contract of this case, may be subject to creditor’s right of revocation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2) However, it is necessary, however, that a claim can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation was established before the fraudulent act occurred, but it is highly probable that the claim would be established at the time of the fraudulent act, and that the claim would be established in the near future in the near future. The claim may also be preserved by the obligee’s right of revocation, and the legal relationship which forms the basis for the establishment of the claim may not be limited to the legal relationship under the agreement between the parties, but it should be widely included, such as quasi-legal relations or facts with which the establishment of the claim is probable. Since the above facts and the aforementioned evidence were found to have been comprehensively considered in light of the overall arguments, (i) the Plaintiff’s tax claim was not yet established on March 1, 200 and around November 5, 2010, and (ii) the Plaintiff’s tax claim was not established on the non-party 20-value-added tax claim on the non-party 10-value-added tax claim on the non-party 10-value-added tax claim on the non-value-added 2.

B. Whether the defendant acted in good faith

1) As seen in the foregoing, the monetary donation contract of this case was made around March 2009 with health care, and as seen in the foregoing, with respect to whether the Defendant was unaware of the Defendant’s conduct of HB at the time of entering into the monetary donation contract of this case, and the Defendant acquired the monetary donation of this case No. 602 at 490, Dong-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul with the above donation money of this case, and the Defendant recognized that the Defendant paid the gift tax pursuant to the monetary donation contract of this case to the Plaintiff, and that the entire purport of the pleadings was considered in consideration of the above facts acknowledged, i.e., the monetary donation contract of this case was made two years prior to the special tax investigation on the non-party title, and (ii) if the Defendant knew that the special tax investigation was conducted with respect to the non-party title, it would have not been possible to deem that the monetary donation contract of this case was not a creditor of HB, or that the Defendant did not purchase the apartment as the donation money of this case.

2) The Defendant, at the time of entering into the instant real estate donation contract, was aware of the Plaintiff’s non-party B’s non-party 1’s act at the time of entering into the instant real estate donation contract, and the Plaintiff’s non-party 1’s non-party 7 through 11, and the overall purport of each entry and pleading as to the non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 20-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act, or the defendant constitutes a bona fide beneficiary, and it is not necessary to further examine whether the contract of this case exceeds the debt of shipB at the time of each contract of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.