It is difficult to view the instant housing as a fraudulent act because it appears that it was difficult to know about the transfer tax-free statutes as 80 years of age at the time of disposing of the instant housing.

In view of the fact that the obligee’s risk of being unable to receive reimbursement due to the lack of joint collateral, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the obligee’s risk of being unable to receive reimbursement due to the lack of joint collateral, which is the subjective requirement of obligee’s right of revocation, has occurred due to the shortage of joint collateral at the time of the donation contract in this case.

Article 89 (Non-Taxable Transfer Income)

Incheon District Court 2013 Ghana 222826

Korea

Park AA

February 5, 2014

February 14, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

A donation contract concluded on August 29, 2008 with the Defendant and the BB on real estate listed in the separate sheet

B. It shall be revoked within the scope of PO, OO, and OO. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. A. AB around May 31, 1989, purchased the land and its ground house (hereinafter referred to as the “water dynamic house of this case”) in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 31, 1989. After that, BB sold the water dynamic house of this case to the KimCC on March 20, 2007 and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the above KimCC on April 17, 2007.

B. In addition, thisB shall not apply to the Defendant on August 29, 2008, his/her husband and wife, 5,950 square meters for the forest 72 square meters in Hanam-dong,Hanam-dong,Hanam-dong.

(hereinafter referred to as "real estate of this case") donated (hereinafter referred to as "the donation contract of this case") and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 1, 2008.

C. As to the transfer of the instant underwater house to the above BB by the director of the listed tax office under the Plaintiff’s control

On November 1, 2008, OOO, OO0 won, and resident tax, OOO, and OOO(hereinafter referred to as "the tax obligation of this case") which are incomeed around December 2008 were each notified of tax payment.

D. Meanwhile, on June 15, 2011, the Korea Electric Power Corporation passed the transmission line among the instant real estate to the Defendant.

the public space between 29.0 and 49 meters on the upper part of 1,93 square meters on the surface of the earth;

A business district was set up and paid O, OO, and OO as its land rent.

(e) Related statutes;

○ Income Tax Act [Law No. 8144, January 1, 2007]

Article 89 (Non-taxable Transfer Income Tax) (1) The following incomes shall be subject to the income tax on transfer income:

No capital gains tax shall be levied.

3. One house for one household prescribed by the Presidential Decree (value higher than the standard prescribed by the Presidential Decree).

Income accruing from transfer of the area (hereafter in this Article, referred to as “land annexed to a house”) within the area calculated by multiplying the area of the land attached thereto by the ratio as determined by the Presidential Decree by the area on which the building is fixed by region.

Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act [Presidential Decree No. 19890, February 28, 2007]

(4) In cases where a person who possesses one house for one household and forms one household joins the households in order to care for the lineal ascendant (including the lineal ascendant of his/her spouse) of 60 or more years old having one house (in cases of a woman, 55 or more years old) by living together, and consequently, one household comes to possess two houses, the house first transferred within two years from the total date of joining shall be considered as one house for one household, and the provisions of Article 154 (1) shall be applied to him/her.

Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act [Presidential Decree No. 21301, February 4, 2009]

(4) Where a person who owns one house for one household and forms one household joins the households in order to care for the lineal ascendant (including the lineal ascendant of his spouse) over 60 years old who possesses one house by living together, and one household comes to possess two houses for one household, the house which is first transferred within five years from the date of joining shall be regarded as one house for one household, and Article 154 (1) shall be applied to the house which is first transferred within five years from the date of joining.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, and statements in Gap 3 through 6; and

The purport of all pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

The defendant 1 from the date on which he became aware of the plaintiff's fraudulent act revocation lawsuit of this case

Defenses, which have been filed subsequent to the lapse of a year, are unlawful.

In the exercise of creditor's right of revocation, the creditor, who is the starting point of the exclusion period, shall be liable for the revocation.

of this title, the term "the date when the debtor becomes aware of the existence of such fraudulent act" is known to the effect that the debtor knowingly

This means the date on which the debtor conducts a disposal of the property. This merely means that the debtor conducts a disposal of the property.

It is not sufficient to say that there is a specific fraudulent act, and furthermore, the debtor is aware of the existence of a specific fraudulent act.

It is also necessary to know the fact that there was such exclusion period, and the burden of proof about the excess of the exclusion period is required.

A creditor is the other party to a revocation suit (Supreme Court Decision 2000Da3262 Decided September 29, 2000, Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102 Decided March 26, 2009, etc.).

According to the records in the health stand and Eul evidence No. 3, the defendant, on October 27, 2009, shall notify the plaintiff on October 27, 2009.

It can be recognized that gift tax was paid on the gift of the real estate in this case. On the other hand, A

In full view of the contents of evidence 7 and 8 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff's tracking of high-amount delinquent taxpayers.

In the course of conducting the investigation, the above Park Park-A's financial property was investigated and the result thereof was confirmed on April 2013.

A. In light of the aforementioned facts and the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff

It is reasonable to view that even before April 2013, the ground for revocation of the creditor revocation lawsuit was known, and the defendant's defense is without merit, since there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case after the lapse of the exclusion period of the creditor revocation lawsuit.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a) Grounds for claims;

B. On August 29, 2008, the Plaintiff donated the instant real estate to the Defendant for the purpose of evading the disposition on default, while the Plaintiff, as a child of the above B, the instant donation contract, as a child of the said B, was in excess of the liability of the Plaintiff by reducing the Plaintiff’s tax claim by reducing the liability of the said BB. The Plaintiff knew that the instant donation contract, as a child of the said B, would hinder the Plaintiff’s tax claim.

Therefore, since the contract of this case was revoked as a fraudulent act, and since Korea Electric Power Corporation acquired divided superficies on the real estate after the contract of this case with the method of restitution, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of compensation, the amount of compensation for value, the amount of reduced 00 OOO, OOO, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the date of the conclusion of this judgment to

B. Determination

(1) The “incluence intention”, which is a subjective element of the obligee’s right of revocation, is aware of the fact that there is a risk that the obligee would be difficult to obtain reimbursement due to the lack of joint security (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102 Decided March 26, 2009).

(2) In the instant case, where a person who has one house under the relevant income tax law and constitutes one household unit for the purpose of living together with 60 or more years old lineal ascendants (including his spouse's lineal ascendants) holding one house, the house first transferred within a certain period of time shall be deemed one house for one household (Article 155(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act), and this period of 2.0 years to be extended from 9.3 years pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act on February 4, 2009, the above 2.00 2.0 7. 1. 1. 2. 3. 2. 9, 207 2. 9, 207 . 1. 3. 20, 207 . 1. 3. 20, 2007 . 1. 3. 20, 2002 . 20, 196 . 12. 26. 2. 2

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., (1) the above BB held only 10,00 houses owned from May 1989 to March 2007, and (2) the transfer income tax system has been frequently amended as part of the government policy. In this case, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff had one house under the relevant income tax law and the lineal ascendant (including his spouse’s lineal ascendant) of 60 or more years old who owns one house and constitutes one household own two houses, and it is difficult to view the house first transferred within a certain period of time from the date of joining the above households as one house for one household, and (3) the said BB was unable to be considered as one house for the above 10-year period from February 4, 2009 to 18-year period from the date of this case’s tax payment notification to the Plaintiff at the time of this case’s tax payment notification, and (4) the said BB was unable to be considered as one house for the above 1-year period from the date of this case’s tax payment notification to 80-year.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the above BB had the intention of deception and the remaining facts are examined, and it is dismissed as it is without any justifiable reason.

The decision shall be rendered as above.