Changwon District Court 2013Kadan1483 ( November 05, 2013)

It is reasonable to view that the debtor was aware that he/she had harmed the creditor's claims.

In recognizing the fact that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, there should be objective and acceptable evidence, but in this case there is no particular evidence to recognize the defendant as a bona fide beneficiary. Rather, the defendant cannot be recognized as a bona fide beneficiary because he is closely related to KimB's father's father and is closely related to KimB.

2013Na32387 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

KimA

Changwon District Court Decision 2013Ra1483 Decided November 5, 2013

June 26, 2014

July 24, 2014

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. As to the portion of 1/2 of 100 square meters out of 109,884 square meters in O-gun O-gun O-gun O-gun O-gun O-gun O-gun O-do:

A. Revocation of the gift agreement concluded on July 5, 2010 between the Defendant and KimB (OO-OOOOO) and the Defendant, and:

B. The Defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on July 5, 2010 by the Changwon District Court Joint Registry of the Changwon District Court by the receipt of No. 8342.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

"Emb" on March 28, 2008, on April 18, 2008, 1000 OB sold each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to 2000 won (hereinafter "the first transfer"), and thereafter, on December 7, 2009, the registration of ownership transfer for each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list No. 1 to 30,000 won (hereinafter "the second transfer") was completed on December 1, 2009 (hereinafter "the second transfer"), 1 to 30,000 won, 200,000 won, 1 to 30,000 won, 200,000 won, 1 to 200,000 won, 200,000 won, 1 to 30,000 won, 200,000 won, 1 to 30,000 won.

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that could be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there is a legal relationship that has already been based on which the claim was established at the time of the fraudulent act, and that it would be established in the near future, and where a claim has been created as a result of the fact-finding in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da64038, Nov. 26, 2002). Such legal principle applies to a taxation claim, as it is likewise applicable to a taxation claim, even if there was no specific taxation disposition at the time of the fraudulent act, and if a taxation claim has been established specifically through a series of procedures, such as the actual imposition disposition, etc., even if there is a high probability that a claim may be established in the near future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 67536).

In light of the above legal principles, since the director of Msan Tax Office under his control determines each transfer income tax on January 201 and on July 13, 2012 from the date of the conclusion of the gift contract of this case and transfer the real estate listed in the attached Forms 1 and 2 real estate list to Masan KimB, and thus, at the time of the conclusion of the gift contract of this case, the obligation to pay transfer income tax on the plaintiff was established abstractly, the basic legal relations on the occurrence of transfer income tax claim of this case was already established, and there was a high probability that the transfer income tax claim of this case would be established in the near future. In fact, the possibility of the plaintiff's establishment of transfer income tax by determining and notifying the transfer income tax to KimB on January 201 and July 13, 2012, and thus the right to collect transfer income tax was established specifically. Accordingly, each of the instant tax claims against the plaintiff KimB against the plaintiff is the preserved claim for revocation of fraudulent act.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

(i) the insolvency of KimB;

A) First of all, in full view of the overall purport of statements and arguments as to whether KimB’s insolvent, Gap evidence No. 3, Gap evidence No. 4-2 through No. 9, KimB may recognize the fact that the small property was in excess of the active property as shown in the table below at the time of the instant donation contract, and even if the value of the active property was calculated based on an ordinarily lower appraisal than the market value and KimB did not have any obligation at the time of the instant donation contract, it is reasonable to view that KimB was at least in excess of its obligation due to the said donation contract.

[Attachment] Omission

B) As to this, the Defendant alleged that the OO No. 4 of the above table OO-type No. 4 should be based on OOO-type 33 land and the value of two parcels, which is the appraised value at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security, for the above land. However, the above evaluation was conducted in around 2006 through 207, and it was conducted in around 2010, and there was a difference between the contract of this case and the contract of this case for voluntary auction for the above land (CO-type 26352, Changwon District Court 2010) and the appraisal of the real estate should be based on the market price at the time of the fraudulent act, and the appraised value calculated according to the due procedure for real estate should also be considered as reflecting the market price, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da62660, Apr. 27, 2001).

C) In addition, the Defendant asserts that the additional tax in each of the instant taxation claims is merely an incidental part, and KimB could not expect the imposition of additional tax, and thus it should not be included in the small property. However, in determining whether the debtor's insolvency, which is the requirement for the obligee's right of revocation, was the subject of fraudulent act, it is required that the small property, in principle, was generated before the act was committed. However, there is high probability that the legal relationship, which is the basis of the establishment of the obligation, has already been established at the time of the fraudulent act, and that the obligation should be established in the near future. In fact, it is highly probable that the debt should be included in the debtor's small property if the debt has been established because it was realized in the near future (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da68084, Jan. 13, 2011). As seen earlier, there was a legal relationship established as the basis for the establishment of each of the instant taxation obligations at the time of the instant donation contract, and that each of the instant OB's tax liability was established in the near future.

(ii)the intent to commit fraudulent acts and to commit fraud;

A) According to the above facts, KimB deepened the status of excess by donating the forest land of this case to the defendant, his father, in a situation where the small property exceeds the obligation of positive property, and thus, the contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the general creditors including the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances. It is reasonable to view that the contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the general creditors including the plaintiff, and that the debtor KimB, the debtor, KimB, was aware that it would prejudice the general creditors, and the defendant's bad faith, the beneficiary,

" 나) 이에 대하여 피고는, 김BB이 제1차 양도에 따른 매매대금 OOOO원 중 OOOO원을 주식회사 EE부동산(이하EE부동산'이라 한다)에 컨설팅비용으로 지급하였으므로 제1차 양도에 대하여 부과될 양도소득세가 존재하지 아니하였고, 제2차 양도의 경우 양도대상 부동산의 현물출자 가액이 그 취득대금보다 적었을 뿐만 아니라 그에 대한 양도소득세의 신고 ・ 납부는 원래 위 부동산을 매수하기로 한 남FF이 모두 책임지기로 하였으므로, 김BB으로서는 이 사건 증여계약 당시 이 사건 각 조세채권이 발생할 개연성을 예측하거나 인식할 수 없어 결국 김BB에게 사해의사가 없었다고 주장하나, 을 제1 내지 5호증, 을 제7호증의 1 내지 5의 각 기재만으로는 피고의 위 주장사실을 인정하기에 부족하고 그 밖에 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없을 뿐만 아니라, 오히려 앞서 든 각 증거와 갑 제6호증의 1, 2, 갑 제7, 8호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사실 및 사정들, 즉 ① 김BB은 2010. 7. 5 그 적극재산 중 이 사건 임야와 OO도 OO군 OO면 OO리 산90-7 임야 16,614㎡를 모두 피고에게 증여하였을 뿐만 아니라, 이툴 후인 2010. 7. 7.에는 성GG에게 OO도 OO군 OO읍 OO리 223-1 답 1,187㎡와 같은 읍 하리 517-1 답 680㎡에 관하여 매매계약에 기한 가등기를 마쳐주었다가 2011. 3. 10. 위 각 토지에 관하여 원고 명의의 압류등기가 마쳐지자 2011. 8. 9. 성GG에게 위 매매예약에 기한 본등기를 마쳐준 점, ② 마산세무서장은 2010. 11. 25. 김BB에게, 제1차 양도에 관한 양도소득세 과세표준 신고시 필요경비 산입분으로 신고한 OOOO원에 대하여 거래처인 EE부동산에서 그 거래사실을 부인함에 따라 양도소득세 OOOO원을 부과한다는 내용의 과세예고통지를 하였는데, 김BB은 이에 대해 원고에게 과세전적부심사청구 등 불복을 제기하거나 해명자료를 제출한 사실이 없는 점, ③ 김BB은 제2차 양도에 관한 양도소득과세표준 예정신고 등의 절차를 이행하지 아니하였고, 이후 마산세무서장으로부터 2011. 10.경 양도소득세 기한후신고 안내문을 송달받고도 자진신고를 이행하지 않았으며, 2012. 6.경 과세예고통지서 및 2012. 7.경 납세고지서를 송달받고도 이에 대해 과세전적부심사청구 또는 이의를 제기하지 아니한 점, ④ 설령 김BB이 이 사건 증여계약 당시 이 사건 각 조세채권 중 납부불성실 가산세 합계 OOOO원(= OOOO원 + OOOO원)의 부과를 예상하지 못하였다고 보아 이를 김BB이 인식한 소극재산에서 제외하더라도, 이 사건 증여계약 당시 김BB의 소극재산은 합계 OOOO원(= OOOO원 - OOOO원)인 반면 적극재산은 이 사건 증여계약으로 인한 감소분을 반영하면 합계 OOOO원(= OOOO원 - OOOO원)에 불과하여 김BB이 이 사건 증여계약 당시 위와 같은 채무초과 상태를 인식하지 못하였다고 보기 어려운 점 등을 종합해 보면, 김BB은 제1, 2차 양도에 따른 양도소득세가 부과될 것을 충분히 알 수 있었음에도 사해의사로써 이 사건 증여계약을 체결하였다고 봄이 상당하므로, 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.", 다) 나아가 피고는, 이 사건 증여계약이 사해행위에 해당함을 알지 못하였으므로 선의의 수익자라는 취지로 주장하나, 사해행위 당시 수익자가 선의였음을 인정함에 있어서는 객관적이고도 납득할 만한 증거자료 등이 뒷받침되어야 하고(대법원 2009. 5. 28. 선고 2009다11617 판결 등 참조), 채무자와 수익자의 관계, 채무자와 수익자 사이의 처분행위의 내용과 그에 이르게 된 경위 또는 동기, 그 처분행위의 거래조건이 정상적이고 이를 의심할 만한 특별한 사정이 없으며 정상적인 거래관계임을 뒷받침할 만한 객관적인 자료가 있는지 여부, 그 처분행위 이후의 정황 등 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여 논리칙 ・ 경험칙에 비추어 합리적으로 판단하여야 하는바(대법원 2008. 7. 10. 선고 2007다74621 판결 등 참조), 이 사건에서 피고가 선의의 수익자라고 인정할 만한 별다른 증거가 없고, 오히려 피고는 김BB의 딸로서 김BB과 밀접한 인적 관계가 있는 점, 피고는 이 사건 증여계약 당시 김BB으로부터 이 사건 임야뿐만 아니라 OO도 OO군 OO면 OO리 산90-7 임야 16,614㎡까지 증여받은 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고의 위 주장도 이유 없다.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant donation contract between the defendant and KimB shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and as a result, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant with respect to the instant forest land to KimB.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted in its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, and all of the plaintiff's claims are revoked and accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.