Revocation of Fraudulent Act

At the time of the transfer of the instant real estate, the transferor was aware of one house for one household, and was unlikely to expect that he would be subject to an additional imposition of capital gains tax from the Plaintiff, and even if the transferor transferred the money to the Defendant prior to the imposition of additional capital gains tax, it is difficult to deem that the transferor had the intention of deception.

Suwon District Court Ansan Branch-2016-Ban-113236 ( August 10, 2017)

Korea

Annual 00

2017.06.29

.08.10

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The agreement between the defendant and the non-party A shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 187,636,680. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 187,636,680 per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case is finalized to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 29, 2015, aa transferred KRW 965,50,00 to Nonparty BB for KRW 367,320,00 on August 31, 2015 and paid KRW 367,320 on August 31, 2015.

B. After that, the Plaintiff: (a) determined aa as the owner of three houses per household on December 4, 2015; and (b) notified that capital gains tax of 168,393,580 won additionally imposed should be paid until December 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant taxation disposition”).

C. Aa also defaulted 46,260 won of comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2015.

D. However, at the time of the transfer of the instant real property, Aa was not three houses per household.

E. Meanwhile, Aaa on July 1, 2015, as stated in the separate sheet, to the Defendant, his/her father, as his/her father, as the case may be, KRW 24 million;

On July 2, 2015, KRW 177,088,00 has been remitted respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 6 evidence, Eul 1 to 3, 8 and 9 evidence (including those with additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Even if an administrative disposition is unlawful, the validity of the disposition cannot be denied unless the disposition is revoked by the fairness of the administrative act, unless there is a reason to deem the defect as null and void due to its significant and apparent defect. However, since the period of filing a lawsuit for revocation of the disposition of this case has expired, the Plaintiff’s claim for capital gains tax against Aa against the Plaintiff was effective. Accordingly, as a result, Aa, which was in excess of the obligation, made a donation of cash to the Defendant, constitutes a fraudulent act, the said donation constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus aa, which is in excess of the obligation, seeks a payment of the amount as stated in the claim

B. Determination

Even if the plaintiff asserts, the transfer of this case to the plaintiff by the fairness of the administrative act

Even if the claim is deemed valid, aa does not constitute a 3rd house owner at the time of the transfer of the instant real estate, and as such, Aa could not be anticipated to be subject to an additional imposition of capital gains tax from the Plaintiff. Thus, even if aa transfers money to the Defendant prior to the imposition of additional capital gains tax, even if aa transfers money to the Defendant prior to the disposition of imposition of additional capital gains tax, it is difficult to view that aa is a

In addition, in light of the fact that aa was in arrears with the gross real estate holding tax amounting to 46,260 won as seen earlier, there is no evidence to deem that aa had been notified of the above taxation fact prior to the transfer to the Defendant, that the said tax is a small amount of tax, and that aa had a deposit exceeding the above gross real estate holding tax to Aa at the time when the transfer to the Defendant was made by the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that a had the intention to commit an injury to Aa solely on the basis of the above fact of delinquency.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.