Seoul Eastern District Court 2014Kadan126712 ( October 18, 2016)

sale of the real estate to the relative and constitutes a fraudulent act under the burden of capital gains tax.

Unless there are special circumstances, a fraudulent act is deemed to be a fraudulent act and a bad faith of the debtor's will and beneficiary is presumed to be a fraudulent act, and thus, it should be revoked as a fraudulent act, unless there are special circumstances.

Article 406 of the Civil Code, Right of Revocation

2015Na23446 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Sale of taxable real estate (hereinafter referred to as "taxable real estate"), and Daegu District Court to OO and PP on June 10, 2013

The registration of transfer of ownership has been completed as an OO in receipt of Kimcheon Support.

2) BB on July 2, 2013, the transfer income tax following the transfer of the instant taxable real estate.

The director of the listed tax office under the Plaintiff did not pay it to BB on October 9, 2013.

132,089,320,000,00 won plus 1,450,095 won of penalty tax due to a failure to pay in 130,639,231 won

A resolution to impose capital gains tax of this case (hereinafter referred to as "capital gains tax of this case") is made, and the capital gains tax of this case is made.

On October 31, 2013, the notice was given to the payment.

3) BB shall pay the transfer income tax of this case and the additional charges incurred until the filing of the instant lawsuit.

The total amount of 18,228,300 won is 150,317,620 won in arrears.

B. Sales contract between the Defendant and BB

The defendant, on June 14, 2013, entered in the indication of the attached real estate from BB on June 14, 2013

Each real estate shall be called ‘real estate', and if the site and buildings are separated, ‘the site' or ‘the site' shall be private.

Sales contract with the content that only "building" is specified as "building" and that purchases 350 million won in sales amount.

(hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case") is concluded, and on June 2013, each of the real estate of this case.

25. Transfer of ownership by OOO received from the Seoul Eastern District Court on June 14, 2013

The registration(hereinafter referred to as the "registration of ownership transfer of this case") has been completed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6 through 8, 14, Eul evidence 1, 13 (Provisional lot number)

Each entry, including section, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole

2. Establishment of a fraudulent act;

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant and BB entered into the instant sales contract on June 14, 2013

BB completed the registration of transfer of ownership of the instant taxable real estate to OO or PP.

Then, the basis for the establishment of the claim for the transfer income tax of this case against the Plaintiff BB

The legal relationship was created, and the claim was based on such legal relationship in the near future.

There was a high probability about the establishment of the government, and in fact, voluntary declarations on July 2, 2013 (the late date).

With respect to the assessment and collection of the transfer income tax of this case on October 9, 2013, the probability of realizing it in the near future.

As such, it is reasonable to deem that a preserved claim exists (Supreme Court Decision 201 March 23, 2001).

High Court Decision 200Da37821 decided May 1, 200

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

(i) selling real estate, the sole property of the debtor, and replacing it with money that can be consumed by the debtor.

, unless there are special circumstances, a fraudulent act is committed and the debtor's deception is subject to the subjective requirement of the fraudulent act.

The proceedings refer to the recognition of the deficiency in the joint security of claims,

of the debtor, and is the sole property of the debtor.

In the event that real estate is sold and sold and the debtor's intention is changed into money that is easily consumed, the debtor's intention

Supreme Court Decision 9Da2515 Decided April 9, 199, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da2515, Apr. 9

2) The purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements set forth in Gap evidence 6, 9, 11, and Eul evidence 9-1 to 4.

In this case, each real estate of this case (transaction value) as active property of BB at the time of the sales contract of this case

A. 355 million won, but at the time of the transaction, on the ground floor, second floor, and rooftop of the instant building acquired by the Defendant at the time of the transaction.

The sum of the lease deposits related to KRW 15 million and the defendant living while paying it to BB.

If the amount of KRW 90,000 is fully deducted from the lease deposit for the first floor of the instant building that was returned, 100,000 won

50 million won and 51.82/5192 shares in each 51.82/5192 in the name of the spouse Doddd, BB.

Seoul, the ownership transfer registration of which is completed, the same 189.7 square meters, Seongdong-gu OO-O road, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, for the same Dong.

O-O large 142.2 square meters, such O-O road 95.2 square meters, and such O-O road 307.3 square meters.

In this regard, each real estate in the name of the network DD is classified as a road or its ownership shares.

not (BB’s inheritance shares are only 3/11 of those shares), the property value of which is significant.

In fact, each of the instant real estate was the only property BBB.

(iii) BB of each of the instant real property, which may therefore be the sole property of BB; and

The contract shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and shall be restored to its original state by the defendant to BB.

There are obligations to cancel each registration of transfer of ownership.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is consistent with this conclusion.

Since the defendant's appeal is legitimate, it is dismissed as it is without merit.

Korea

AA

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2014Da126712 Decided May 18, 2015

February 24, 2016

March 2, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On June 14, 2013, concluded on June 14, 2013 with regard to each real estate indicated in the indication of attached real estate between the defendant and B

The defendant shall cancel the sales contract. The defendant shall cancel the sales contract to BB with respect to each real estate indicated in the attached Form.

Registration of cancellation of each transfer of ownership completed under No. 43465 on June 25, 2013 by the Seoul Eastern District Court (Seoul Eastern District Court)

D. The proceedings will be implemented.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. Disposition of imposition of capital gains tax on BB by the Plaintiff

1) BB on May 30, 2013, OO and PPP on May 30, 2013, the ownership of which is Kimcheon-si OO-dong 931 square meters (hereinafter “O-dong 931 square meters”).

The sales contract between the parties becomes a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances.

It is presumed that the intention of BB BB to understand is also presumed.

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

1) The Defendant was entirely unaware of the unpaid transfer income tax of BB at the time of the instant sales contract.

(1) If the purchase of each of the instant real estate was made by paying the amount equivalent to

I argue that it falls under the category.

2) Since the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed to be a beneficiary in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, his or her responsibility

B If intending to be exempted, he/she shall be responsible to prove his/her good faith. In such cases, whether the beneficiary has acted in good faith or not

The relationship between a person and a beneficiary, and the details of the disposal act between the debtor and the beneficiary, and the circumstances leading thereto.

, there are no special circumstances to suspect that the terms and conditions of the act of disposal are normal and conclusive.

whether there is objective data to support the normal transaction relationship, and the disposition thereof;

Considering various circumstances, such as the circumstances after the above, reasonable in light of logical and empirical rules.

Furthermore, determination ought to be made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74621, Jul. 10, 2008).

objective and acceptable evidence to recognize that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of such fraudulent act

statement that is only a unilateral statement of the debtor or a third party and that is supported by the fee, etc.

On the basis of only a fraudulent act, it shall not be readily concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of such fraudulent act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.)

3) First, at the time of the instant sales contract, the Defendant is aware of the unpaid transfer income tax of BB.

The testimony of EE of the witness of the first instance court to the effect that the testimony was not made by the witness of the first instance court is not made in his opinion or conjection.

In addition, as seen earlier, the transfer income tax of this case at the time of the sales contract

Since a legal relationship which forms the basis of establishment has occurred, the unpaid capital gains tax of BB at the time.

It is natural that there is no fact.

In addition, according to the statements in Section B 1 through 3, 7 through 9, and 11, the division on July 25, 201

on February 14, 2012, the disposal of each real estate of this case has been requested to the brokerage office, and this company

The transaction price under the sales contract is not significantly different from the market price, and a majority of the lease deposit received by the defendant.

On June 14, 2013, the account of BB in the name of the remaining purchase price after deducting the amount equivalent to the refund debt.

The remittance of KRW 20 million, KRW 50 million on June 21, 2013, and KRW 170 million on June 24, 2013 is known.

(1) However, the sales contract of this case was in collusion between the Defendant and BB.

It is not a false representation but a joint security of a claim.

whether or not the Defendant did not recognize the shortage of

is not the case.

In addition, the above evidence and evidence No. 5 were added to the purport of the whole argument and the whole argument.

In light of the following circumstances, the defendant's presumption of bad faith merely because of the above circumstances alone.

The defendant's bona fide assertion is not sufficient to reverse and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

No matter may be raised.

1) The Defendant married with BB EE on June 30, 201, but was married with BB on June 30, 201, before BB

For the elderly, the defendant himself was well aware of the property status of BB.

BB’s disposal of real property without any particular income by requiring cost of living;

state that it was known to it.

② On the instant taxable real property, the Defendant was also a building owned by the Defendant, but the Defendant was EE and this.

After the combination, if BB receives a loan by offering the taxable real property of this case as security, the above building

Along with BB by providing B as a joint security, it seems that it led to the human relationship with BB.

(3) When BB sells the taxable real estate of this case, the Defendant shall simultaneously sell the building owned by the Defendant.

The procedures for filing capital gains tax were also conducted, and the sales contract of this case was the division of this case.

immediately after the transfer of the property to BB is subject to the taxation of the capital gains tax of this case.

was concluded.

④ In light of the above, the Defendant’s instant case to BB at the time of the instant sales contract.

The fact that the obligation to pay capital gains tax equivalent to the disposal of taxable real estate arises.

BB was aware of the fact that there is no property other than each of the instant real property, and accordingly, there is a shortage of joint security due to the disposal of each of the instant real property by other creditors.

It seems that it has been sufficiently known that the claims cannot be satisfied.

⑤ On the other hand, the Defendant paid BB the balance of 170 million won of each of the instant real estate.

immediately preceding BB to the Defendant 19,282,248 won (169,282,248 June 10, 2013);

On June 24, 2013, the amount of KRW 30 million was deposited. Accordingly, the Defendant’s taxation real estate of this case and the amount of KRW 30 million.

10 million won equivalent to the price of the building, out of the purchase price received by BB after selling the ground building;

Won (the defendant asserts that the construction of the above building requires KRW 110 million) and this letter

The Defendant’s claim for the return of lease deposit against BB on the first floor of the building was received KRW 90 million.

The claim is that the transfer price of the above building is KRW 95 million under the sales contract.

in this chapter (as evidence of the Defendant’s claim for the payment of the construction costs, KS-type KS-type KS will be drawn up.

The 1st floor of the instant building to BB, which is a statement of settlement of accounts, only there is evidence No. 10

financial data supporting that the amount of 90,000,000 won has been actually paid in connection with the lease

not. Also, the security deposit for the lease of the first floor of the building by the Defendant to purchase the instant building.

90 million won is not deducted from the purchase price, but is returned in cash again;

The fact that payment is made as payment is an exceptional method, so it is difficult to accept with the fact that the defendant is the former husband (the former husband)

It is argued that the EE and his family members were unable to believe so that the evidence was left against the EE and its family members, but different;

Documentary evidence that such transactions are given and received to an account without any other indication by mixing with money under any other name.

It does not seem that the materials were a clear method. In light of this point, each of the instant cases

There is no doubt about whether each contract was made normally.

3. Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Therefore, it was concluded on June 14, 2013 between the Defendant and BB on each of the instant real estate.