Whether a fraudulent act is subject to revocation in cases of provisional registration of a trade reservation during the tax investigation period;

The establishment of provisional registration on real estate, which is the only property through trade reservation during the period of tax investigation, by a business operator who has omitted sales while running a business, is highly probable for the establishment of legal relations of taxation claims and the establishment of future tax claims, and in fact, the taxation claims arising from the tax investigation become the preserved claim of the creditor's right of revocation.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 30 (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act)

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

With respect to real property listed in the Schedule:

A. The sales contract concluded on June 7, 2007 between Nonparty 1 and the Defendant was revoked; and

B. The defendant will implement the procedure for registration cancellation of the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership, which was completed on June 8, 2007 by the 14270 registry office of the Daejeon District Court.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Determination as to the basic facts and the cause of the claim

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. First, the Defendant asserts that, inasmuch as the time of establishment is later than the time of conclusion of a sales contract between 0,000 for the instant real estate and the Defendant, the said sales promise cannot be revoked on the ground that the Plaintiff’s eight global income tax and value-added tax on 0,000,000 won (hereinafter “instant tax claim”). As such, the time of establishment is later than the time of conclusion of the sales contract between 0,000 for the instant real estate and the Defendant, the Defendant did not have a duty to cancel the instant

However, even though it is required that in principle, a claim protected by the obligee's right of revocation was created prior to the occurrence of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of the claim at the time of the fraudulent act, and there is high probability that the claim should be established in the near future, and in the near future, where a claim has been created due to its realization 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 2000Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001). The income tax and value-added tax are established when the taxable period expires pursuant to Article 21(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

In full view of the following circumstances, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged to add the purport of the entire pleadings to the testimony of the witness of the trial court and the witness of the trial of the party, i.e., ① operating ○○ Technology from 2004 to 2007, by omitting part of the return of global income tax and value-added tax, causing the underlying legal relationship of the occurrence of the instant taxation claim by omitting a return of global income tax and value-added tax, and ② undergoing a tax investigation of ○○○ Technology from 2007 May 21, 2007 to 13, 2007, and in the process, conducting the tax investigation of ○○ Technology from ○○○, which was based on the above legal relationship, it is highly probable that ○○○ was highly probable that the instant taxation claim of this case was established in the near future prior to the promise to sell or sell the instant real estate to the Defendant, and its probability was realized in the near future.

Therefore, since the taxation claim of this case can be the preserved claim of obligee's right of revocation, the above pre-sale becomes the subject of obligee's right of revocation, and as long as the pre-sale is cancelled, the provisional registration of this case should be cancelled. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Next, the defendant asserts that the provisional registration of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act, since it is the payment of 00 00 YY according to the principal place of the obligation against the defendant.

(1) In general, where a debtor’s property is insufficient to fully repay his/her obligation, and where the debtor provided his/her property as payment in kind or as a security for payment in kind to a certain creditor, barring any special circumstance, it would immediately compromise the interests of other creditors and thereby constitute a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da47301, Feb. 23, 2

(2) The Defendant’s assertion is without merit, as it constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, since the Defendant made a promise to sell and purchase the instant real estate in excess of the debt, and completed the provisional registration of this case, at least as the obligor in excess of the debt, was promised to offer the instant real estate by payment in kind to the Defendant, one of the general creditors, or provided as a collateral.

C. Finally, the defendant asserts that it is a bona fide beneficiary who does not have an intention to harm the plaintiff, who is another creditor.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, it appears that ○○○, a state in which there is no other property than the instant real estate, entered into a pre-sale agreement with the Defendant and completed the provisional registration of this case in the future of the Defendant, was aware that the act of ○○○, a state in which there is no other property than the instant real estate, was insufficient in the joint security of the general creditors including the Plaintiff in the absence of positive property at the time, and as long as the intention of the harm of ○○, a debtor, was recognized, it is presumed that the Defendant, a beneficiary, was the

As shown in the Defendant’s argument, each part of the testimony of the testimony of the witness of the trial court, the witness of the trial court, and the witness of the trial court of the trial of the first instance is the relation between the Defendant and YOT, the time when the provisional registration of the instant case was made, and the time when the Plaintiff started the tax investigation, and it is difficult to believe in light of other various circumstances as shown in the argument of the instant case, and it is difficult to presume that there was an intention of deception to the Defendant, and it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was a bona fide beneficiary, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and therefore, the Defendant’

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and therefore the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.