logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원(전주) 2019.07.25 2018나12396
사해행위취소
Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. On November 1, 2014 between the Defendant and C, 45,700.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C’s children are married couple with E, and the defendant is a couple of E.

B. On May 7, 2015, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff imposed and notified C with comprehensive income tax on real estate rental income for the year 201 to 2013, which was not reported by C, and on January 11, 2016 and July 30, 2016, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff imposed and notified C of transfer income tax as indicated below.

Serial 1: The notified tax amount on the date of notification of the date when the liability to pay tax arises; 1.4th of May 31, 2012; 201; 1.4th of May 7, 2015; 1.5th of May 31, 2015; 203; 2033; 940; 36.4th of May 31, 2016; 206. 372; 910; 384; 4th of May 31, 2014; 196. 4th of May 31, 2016; 206.

C. On November 1, 2014, C remitted KRW 45,700,00 to Defendant B (hereinafter “the instant money”) or the instant remittance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (in the case of documentary evidence with provisional number, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The existence of the preserved claim requires that, in principle, a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation was created prior to the commission of an act that could be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that form the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future by virtue of such legal relations, and in the near future, where a claim has been created due to its realization in the near future, the claim may also become the preserved claim of

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da42957, Nov. 8, 2002). According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff’s objection to C.

arrow