Revocation, etc. of Fraudulent Act

The act of a delinquent taxpayer's transfer of ownership on the ground of donation to his wife constitutes a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

1. Basic facts

A. On December 14, 2001, 00, ○○○○○-do, ○○○○○○○-do, ○○○○○○○○○-do, and its ground buildings were transferred to ○○○○○○, and reported the transfer value of KRW 680,00,00, acquisition value of KRW 668,132,30 on March 2, 2002 and KRW 3,183,480. However, the Plaintiff confirmed that the actual transfer value of the said real estate to ○○○○○○○ was KRW 1,35,757,450, and notified of additional correction on January 15, 2005, around KRW 38,352,620 on the capital gains tax of KRW 201 and KRW 380,95,92,90 on the ground of delay in payment of additional charges, etc., and then filed the instant lawsuit.

B. On March 23, 2002, ○○○ (hereinafter “○○”) donated the real estate listed in the [Attachment List (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, who is his wife, and had the registration of ownership transfer transferred on March 25, 2002 to ○ District Court ○○○○ registry office as 13401.

C. At the time of March 23, 2002, ○○○○○○’s active property as of March 23, 2002, there were 327/2314 shares of ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong 2,314 square meters (an amount equivalent to KRW 6,147,60), 122 square meters in ○○-gun ○○○-gun ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

[Adoption Evidence] Evidence Nos. 1 and 13-1 through 3, A2, 5, 6, and 10-2, A3 and 4, A7-2 and 9-2, A11, A12-1 through 8, A14, and 15-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

[Evidence Evidence] evidence No. 7,8,9,11, evidence No. 12-4, and evidence No. 13

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

With respect to the real estate of this case, the Plaintiff was aware that the gift contract of this case was concluded on March 23, 2002 between ○○○ and the Defendant, which was concluded on March 23, 2002, and sought the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership that was made in the future in the Defendant as restitution. The Defendants asserted that the exclusion period should be expired since the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed one year after that date, and the exclusion period should be expired on the ground that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was unlawful since it exceeded the exclusion period, when preparing a resolution on the loss against ○○○○○○○○, which was printed out on March 7, 2005.

B. On January 1, 2005 or on March 7, 2005, the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2-2, 4, 2-2, 5, 11 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff knew of the existence of the gift contract of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendant’s defense without need to examine it is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Establishment of fraudulent act

According to the above facts, since ○○○ was placed in excess of its obligation by donation of the instant real estate to the Defendant, such donation constitutes a fraudulent act with knowledge that it would prejudice general creditors, such as the Plaintiff, etc., and the Defendant’s bad faith as a beneficiary is presumed.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(1) The Defendant alleged to the effect that the instant real estate was normally donated by ○○○○, and thus, constitutes a bona fide beneficiary. However, the Defendant did not accept the said assertion on the ground that the evidence No. 11, which seems consistent with the assertion, is not reliable and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

She also argued to the effect that ○○○ was not aware of the imposition of the capital gains tax of this case at the time of the donation contract of this case. However, as seen in the above facts, ○○○ was in excess of the debt at the time of the donation contract of this case, and such fact was known to ○○○○, which was known by ○○○○ (inasmuch as ○○○ sold the real estate of this case and reported the capital gains tax, it seems that the additional imposition of the capital gains tax of this case could have been expected thereafter). Accordingly, the above assertion is rejected.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the donation contract concluded on March 23, 2002 between ○○○ and the Defendant on the instant real estate should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant has a duty to restore the original state to ○○○○○ to perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the status of receipt No. 13401 on March 25, 2002.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted as a whole on the ground of the reasons.

Judges ○○○