Whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act with a specific creditor of a pre-contract or sales contract;

entering into a pre-sale contract and sales contract with a particular creditor for the sole property in excess of liabilities is a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

1. The sales contract concluded on December 1, 2006 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and Kim○○ shall be revoked, respectively.

2. On December 1, 2006, the Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the real estate indicated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff, and each of the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on March

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s claim against Nonparty Kim ○-○

소외 김○○은 ○○시 ○○구 ○○동 ○○○-○에서 ＇○○○○○○○｀라는 상호로 오락실을 운영하는 자인데, 원고 산하 ○○세무서는 2006. 11. 28.부터 같은 해 12. 22. 까지 위 사업장의 2005년 2기와 2006년 1기 각 부가가치세 과세자료 현지확인조사를 실시하여 김○○이 매출액을 누락하여 신고하는 방법으로 부가가치세를 과소신고ㆍ납부한 사실을 발견하고, 같은 달 말경 김○○에게 2005년 제2기 과세기간분 부가가치세 43,853,860원(납세의무성립일 ∶2005. 12. 31.), 2006년 제1기 과세기간분 부가가치세 107,253,930원(납세의무성립일 ∶2006. 6. 30.)을 2007. 2. 28.까지 납부하라고 고지하였으나 김○○은 이를 체납하고 있다.

B. Disposal of the property of Kim○-○

(1) 김○○은 2006. 12. 1. 별지 목록 기재 부동산(이하 ｀이 사건 부동산＇이라 한다)에 관하여 자신의 자형인 피고와 사이에 매매예약(이하 ＇이 사건 매매예약｀이라고 한다) 및 매매계약(이하 ｀이 사건 매매계약＇이라고 한다)을 체결하였고, 이에 따라 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 피고 앞으로 2006. 12. 1. 매매예약을 원인으로 하여 ○○지방법원 ○○등기소 2006. 12. 1. 접수 제○○○○○호로 소유권이전청구권가등기(이하 ＇이 사건 가등기｀라고 한다)가 마쳐졌으며, 또한 2006. 12. 1. 매매를 원인으로 하여 같은 등기소 2007. 3. 13. 접수 제○○○○○호로 소유권이전등기(이하 ｀이 사건 소유권이전등기＇라고 한다)가 마쳐졌다.

(2) There was no special property other than the instant real estate at the time of the instant promise to sell and purchase the instant land and the sales contract.

Facts that there is no dispute (including the ground for recognition), entry in Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including the virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, on December 1, 2006, which was before the month when Kim ○○ received a notice of payment of value-added tax that was evaded by Kim ○○, even though it was highly probable that Kim ○○ would evade value-added tax by unlawful means as above, entering into the instant promise to sell and purchase the instant real estate with the Defendant without any specific property other than the instant real estate constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, which is the creditor, and in such a case, it is presumed that the said promise to sell and sell the instant real estate and the sales contract had been detrimental to the Plaintiff, the creditor of Kim ○○.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

On the other hand, the defendant lent the sum of KRW 74,63,371 on August 18, 2005, KRW 20,000, KRW 18,000 on August 18, 2005, KRW 18,00,00 on October 21, 10 of the same year, and KRW 74,63,371 on December 14 of the same year, and the contract for the sale and purchase and sale of the instant real estate was entered into with payment for the said loan in lieu of payment for the said loan, and thus, it did not constitute a fraudulent act against the plaintiff.

It is difficult to believe that the Defendant lent the above KRW 74,633,371 to Kim○-○ solely with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

In addition, even if the defendant extended the above money to Kim○-○ and received the real estate from Kim○-○ as payment in kind, the debtor's act of offering the real estate already missing in excess of his debt to any one of the creditors as payment in kind constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors unless there are other special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da23207 delivered on October 29, 1996). According to the above facts of recognition, the pre-sale and sales contract of this case concluded with the defendant with regard to the real estate of this case, which is one of his own property, which is the only property of Kim○-○-○, constitutes a fraudulent act because the pre-sale and sales contract of this case made with the defendant with the defendant as to the real estate of this case, which is the real property of this case, constitutes a creditor, and there is no other evidence to recognize it as a bona fide beneficiary by recon

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the instant sales reservation and sales contract entered into between the Defendant and Kim○○ is a fraudulent act, it is revoked, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedures for the provisional registration of this case and the cancellation of ownership transfer registration to its original state.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.