Busan District Court 201 Gohap20167 ( November 08, 2012)

No claim that was incurred after the fraudulent act may be considered as a preserved claim in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act.

(A) In principle, a claim that can be protected by the creditor's right of revocation is required to be created prior to the occurrence of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. The pertinent tax claim cannot be considered as a preserved claim in the lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act as a claim arising after the gift contract claiming a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012Na50872 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

AAAA

BB

April 24, 2014

May 22, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

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

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant PPCC (PPdong 520-6), the defendant PPPPP registry office of the PP district court on May 22, 2007 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list 1, and the defendant KimE implements the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on May 22, 2007 by the PPP registry office of the PP district court on the real estate listed in the attached list 2, and the defendant KimE implements the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on May 22, 2007 (the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of a fraudulent act with the deceased KimF and the defendants on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendants was invalid by subrogationing KimCC as a tax claimant of KimCC, but the plaintiff was changed in the first instance court to exchange the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer

1. Basic facts

A. The KimCC is the first heir of the net KimFF, who died on April 11, 2007, and Defendant Park DoD was the wife of KimCC, and Defendant KimE was the son of KimF.

B. On May 22, 2007, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1, which was owned by the deceased KimF, due to the gift of March 20, 2007 (including the gift to the defendant KimE as seen below (hereinafter referred to as "each gift contract of this case") from the receipt of the PPPP registration office of the PPP registration office on March 22, 2007

The registration of ownership transfer has been completed in the Park DoD.

C. In addition, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 attached hereto, which was owned by the deceased KimF, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the defendant KimE future on the ground of the gift from May 22, 2007 as of March 20, 2007, No. 28834, which was received on May 22, 2007.

D. Meanwhile, with respect to the Plaintiff-based PPPP tax secretary, the Plaintiff-based PPCC imposed global income tax, value-added tax, and capital gains tax on the transfer of real estate generated by leasing real estate owned by KimCC. On August 2012, 2012, the standard delinquent tax amount is KRW 1,373,746,170.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 5, 12 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the registration of transfer of ownership in this case is a registration of invalidation completed without any cause by the KimF after the deceased KimF died, and thus, the Plaintiff asserts that in subrogation of KimCC in order to preserve the taxation claim against the KimCC, the Plaintiff may request the cancellation of each transfer of ownership.

On March 20, 2007, prior to the death of the deceased KimF, the Defendants asserted that on March 20, 2007, the registration was completed after the death of the deceased KimF.

B. Determination

A registration made by an applicant for registration in the name of a deceased person may not be recognized as having the capacity of presumption of registration as the registration invalidation of the cause for registration. However, even though the cause for registration exists, but even though the cause for registration has not yet existed, where inheritance concerning the person liable for registration or the person liable for registration has commenced, if the predecessor lives, the registration he/she applied for pursuant to Article 47 of the Registration of Real Estate Act shall not be deemed null and void. Thus, even if a registration made by the person liable for registration who died is made by the person liable for registration, if there are circumstances such as the existence of the cause for registration prior to the death of the person liable for registration, the registration shall be presumed to have been duly made in accordance with the above procedure, and

C. See Supreme Court Decision 51991, etc.

In the instant case, return to the instant case, and each of the instant gift contracts (as referred to in subparagraph 2-2-3 of the evidence No. 2), the seal of the deceased KimF’s name is affixed. The above seal of KimF’s seal affixed to the credit transaction agreement (Evidence No. 12) prepared by the TF on February 22, 2007 by the TF Federation of TF is similar to that of the land. Each of the instant gift contracts is attached with the deceased KimF’s personal seal impression at the time of applying for ownership transfer registration, and the registrar appears to have verified the identity of the seal and the seal affixed to each of the instant gift contracts by formal examination authority, and barring any special circumstance, it can be presumed that the deceased KimF’s seal affixed to each of the instant gift contracts was affixed with the seal impression affixed to the deceased KimF’s personal seal impression. Unless there are special circumstances, each of the instant gift contracts is presumed to have been established.

Since the death of the deceased KimCC, on May 22, 2007, the plaintiff alleged that he applied for the registration by forging each of the instant donation contracts. Thus, in light of the above facts, the above evidence, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul 4, and 14, the following circumstances recognized as a result of inquiry into the Telecommunication Hospital, ① the deceased KimF was hospitalized in the TT Hospital on March 8, 2007, and was in the status of management strawup or 207, which was the date of the instant donation contract, and the deceased 207, which was the date of the instant donation contract, the deceased 207, and the deceased 207, the deceased 207, which was the date of the instant transfer registration, was written on March 20, 207, and it was found that there was no mental disorder for the deceased 207, which was written on March 20, 207.

Meanwhile, as long as a legitimate cause was established between the parties and the intermediate omission registration was made, the registration of ownership transfer cannot be deemed null and void solely on the ground that there was no agreement on the intermediate omission registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da40651, Sept. 29, 2005). Even if KimCC voluntarily prepared the instant donation contract in the name of the deceased KimF and subsequently made the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendants’ future, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it shall be deemed that KimCC, the sole heir of the deceased KimF, the first heir of the deceased KimF, was the registration of ownership transfer with the intent of donation to the Defendants, and thus, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants

Intentional assertion is without reason, regardless of its appearance.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit (the plaintiff's previous lawsuit was withdrawn as a result of the change of the lawsuit in exchange for an exchange at the trial, and the judgment of the court of first instance on this issue became null and void).