Whether the sale of the property of the defaulted taxpayer after the establishment of the preserved claim constitutes a fraudulent act

The act that the debtor, who is in excess of his obligation, sells the real estate of this case to the defendant, the only property other than his active property, is prejudicial to the plaintiff, and there is no ground to acknowledge the defendant'

Article 30 (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act)

1. A. A. Revocation of each contract concluded on April 6, 2006 with regard to real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and Noh○○.

2. B. The Defendant will perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on April 27, 2006 by the ○○ District Court ○○○ registry office ○○ with respect to the above real estate, to ○○○.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 12, 2005, Nowon-gu sold ○○○○○○ ○○-dong 772-45 square meters of land for a factory on 445 square meters. On March 13, 2006, ○○○○ was given prior notice of imposition of KRW 347,204,70 of capital gains tax on the said sale on the date of payment on April 30 of the same year to Nowon-do ○○○ on the date of payment.

B. On April 6, 2006, No. ○○ signed a sales contract with the Defendant on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on which he own with the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 000 on April 27, 2006 on the ground of the instant sales contract.

C. The ○○ is the Defendant’s view.

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, Gap's evidence 2-1 to 4, Gap's evidence 3-1, 2, Gap's evidence 4, Gap's evidence 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

(a) Claims for preservation;

According to the above facts, prior notice of taxation was given on March 13, 2006. The plaintiff's taxation claim is preserved claim of the creditor's right of revocation, since it is highly probable that the plaintiff was holding a taxation claim prior to the conclusion of the sales contract in this case, at least there was a legal relationship which forms the basis for the formation of the taxation claim, and the tax claim is established due to the close legal relationship in the near future.

(b) Fraudulent act;

According to the purport of each entry and pleading of 12 1 through 5, 13, 14 through 15 respectively, and 1, 2 of the above 14 through 15 respectively, ○○○○○○○-dong 273-4, 104, 273-26, 408 square meters, 273-4, and 273-26 above (hereinafter referred to as “1affirmative”), the above 3,620, 48, 230 won of principal and interest on the above 400, 00 ○○○○○○-dong 1329-1,000, 000, 300, 209, 406, 209, 306, 408, 200, 209, 306, 406, 206, 300, 209, 209, 200.

Therefore, the act of selling the real estate of this case, which is the only property other than the first and second positive property, in excess of the debt, to the defendant is an act detrimental to the plaintiff. It is assumed that the trade of this case was prejudicial to other general creditors including the plaintiff, and that the defendant's bad faith as the beneficiary is presumed.

(c) Good faith;

The defendant asserts that ○○○○○○○○ was a bona fide beneficiary who purchased the real estate of this case without knowing the plaintiff’s tax claim. According to the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s 6th day of sale and purchase, the defendant’s 6th day of sale and purchase of the real estate of this case’s 1,2, 4 through 6th day of each 9-2, 9-1 through 10th day of each 10th day of each 7th day of each 10th day of each 6th day, and the witness’s testimony of this case’s 128,785,00 won of each 6th day of each 6th day of sale and purchase of the real estate of this case’s 6th day of each 20th day of each 6th day of each 6th day of each 20th day of each 6th day of each 6th day of sale and purchase.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the sales contract of this case shall be revoked, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership completed by 000 on April 27, 2006 to ○○○ District Court ○○○○ registry office with respect to the real estate of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Indication of Real Estate

1. ○○○○○○○-gun ○○○○○○○○○○○-109 1884m2

2. 1094-110 square meters per 1884 square meters per annum;

3. 3243 square meters per annum 1094-111;

4. The end of the same Ri 1094-112 289 square meters.