Whether it constitutes a fraudulent act

This case constitutes a fraudulent act and must be cancelled.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration of Fraudulent Act

1. As to 2/9 shares of 00 square meters out of 21-3 forest 278,866 square meters in 00,000, 000 ○○○-gun, ○○○○-gun,

A. A. The sales contract concluded on June 10, 2015 between Defendant Gangnam ○ and Du○○○○ was revoked; and

B. Defendant Gangnam-do shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on July 10, 2015 by the receipt of No. 10773, to ○○ District Court ○○○ Branch ○○○○ Branch ○○○○ Branch ○○ Branch ○○○

2. As to the portion of 1/9 of 21-3 forest land of 278,866 square meters in ○○○○-gun, ○○○○-gun, Chungcheongnam-do:

A. A. The sales contract concluded on June 10, 2015 between Defendant Southern-○ and Du○○○ was revoked; and

B. Defendant South Korea: (a) performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer, which was completed on July 13, 2015 by the receipt No. 10843, on the ○○ District Court’s ○○ Branch ○○○○ Branch ○○○ Branch ○○ Branch ○○

3. As to 2,889 square meters in relation to ○○○○○○○○-gun, Gyeongbuk-do, 145 square meters in succession:

A. A. The sales contract concluded on June 10, 2015 between Defendant Nowon-○ and ○○○○ was revoked within the scope of KRW 22,00,000, and that was concluded on June 10, 2015;

B. Defendant Nowon-○ shall pay to the Plaintiff 22,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

4. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

(a) A taxation claim;

1) On March 6, 2014, ○○○○○-ri 307, 310, and 311, which is one of its owners, around 6, 201.

On April 24, 2014, 307-1, 308, 313, 313-2, 316, 478, and 479 each land (hereinafter referred to as "multi-unit real estate") were sold to Kim○ and Do○○○, and the registration of ownership transfer for 1/2 shares among multi-unit real estate was completed under these names.

2) On May 29, 2014, by applying the requirements for non-taxation and reduction or exemption in relation to the sale and purchase of separate real estate to the Plaintiff. However, on April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff to pay KRW 92,347,582 of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2014 in relation to the sale and purchase of separate real estate by July 31, 2015 on the ground that the tax investigation on the said capital gains tax reported by ○○○ on April 14, 2015 did not constitute the requirements for non-taxation and reduction or exemption.

3) However, ○○○ did not pay the above transfer income tax until the date of closing the argument in the instant case. As of the time of filing the instant lawsuit, the said transfer income tax in arrears by ○○○○ at the time of filing the instant lawsuit amounting to KRW 111,740,550, including additional dues of KRW 19,392,970.

(b) An act of disposal, etc. by ○○○;

1) On June 10, 2015, Ma○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-gun, Gyeongbuk-do, one-third of which he/she owned one-third shares, sold 2/9 shares in the price of KRW 60 million (the contract amount of KRW 10 million on the day of the contract, the remainder of KRW 50 million on the day of the contract, the payment of KRW 50 million on July 10, 2015), and KRW 1/9 shares in the price of KRW 30 million (the contract amount of KRW 5 million on the day of the contract, the balance of KRW 25 million on the day of payment shall be paid on July 10, 2015, and the registration of ownership transfer shall be received to Defendant Nam○○○-do, ○○○○○-do, ○○○○○-do, and each of the above shares shall be received with the pertinent registration office of KRW 1730,715,717.37.

(hereinafter referred to as "the first sales contract," and "the second sales contract, with the ship's and the defendant's Nam-gu," respectively.

2) In addition, on June 10, 2015, ○○○○○○ Branch of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW KRW 3 sales contract. hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant sales contract”). The instant sales contract, both of the 1,23 sales contracts, was concluded.

3) Defendant No. ○○ acquired ownership of the instant land pursuant to the third sales contract.

After all, on August 7, 2015, regarding the above ○○-Myeon land, the right to collateral security was set up as the maximum debt amount of 18.2 million won, the debtor ○○○, and the debtor ○ Agricultural Cooperative.

C. Property status of ○○○

In addition to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, 1450 square meters of forest land, 112.5 million won (i.e., land on the instant ○○○○, + KRW 90 million of land on the instant ○○○, + KRW 22 million + KRW 500,000 of land on the instant ○○○○, + KRW 22 million of forest land on the instant ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, 50,000 won of forest land on the instant ○○○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○○, and ○

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 8, 10, 14, and 15 (including additional numbers), witness's partial testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

1) The tax liability is naturally established when the taxation requirements stipulated by the Act are met, and the timing for establishing a transfer income tax claim is the last day of the month in which the amount forming the tax base occurs (the month in which the date of the transfer of assets), and there is no need for the tax authority or the taxpayer to separately engage in a special act to establish such tax liability or for the taxpayer to recognize the fact that the taxpayer satisfies the taxation requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 208Da8458, May 14, 2009).

2) However, according to the facts found earlier, although at the time of June 10, 2015 when the Defendants entered into the instant sales contract with ○○○○, the Plaintiff did not specifically determine the Plaintiff’s claim for capital gains tax on ○○○○○○○, the end of the month in which the Plaintiff transferred a separate real estate, the liability for capital gains tax has already arisen on April 30, 2014. In addition, in the course of conducting tax investigation on the said capital gains tax on April 16, 2015, the Plaintiff demanded the explanation to ○○○○ on April 16, 2015, which was the date of the conclusion of the sales contract, and the Defendants notified ○○○○○○○○ on May 8, 2015, which was the date of the conclusion of the said sales contract, to impose capital gains tax on ○○○○○ on May 8, 2015, it seems probable that the Plaintiff’s claim for capital gains tax was finally acquired on ○○○○.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

1) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, it can be found that ○○○○ transferred the ownership of the instant ○○○ and the instant land to the Defendants through the instant sales contract, thereby causing the shortage of responsible property or deepening the shortage of property. Thus, the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act (a bad faith of the Defendants, which is a beneficiary, is presumed to have been aware of all of these circumstances, by selling the instant ○○○○○ and the instant ○○○○○ on the same day in its entirety, with the burden of tax liability of KRW 92,347,582 against the Plaintiff). In addition, in light of all the circumstances around the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, etc., in light of the property status of ○○○○ at the time of the instant sales contract, and all of the circumstances around the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, etc., it is reasonable to deem that ○○○ had known the Plaintiff, a creditor of the instant case, as the beneficiary.

2) Determination as to the defendants' assertion

A) The Defendants asserted that, on the following grounds, they were merely purchased the instant ○○ and the instant ○○ surface land on a normal basis, and did not know at the time that they exceeded ○○○’s obligation or the Plaintiff’s tax delinquency against the Plaintiff, they constituted a bona fide beneficiary.

○○○○○○○ introduced the instant ○○○○○○○○ District Office located in Sung-Eup’s territory by a member of the ○○○ Licensed Real Estate Office, and KRW 60 million for recreation activities, recreation activities, loan farming, etc.

It was urgent and purchased 2/9 shares of the land.

In order to identify the graves of the principal and his family members, the Defendant South ○○ sold the instant land on the surface of the instant ○○○○○○○, which had been in physical coloring for several years, by paying KRW 30 million during the period of selling the said land, and purchased KRW 1/9 of the relevant land.

The ○○○○○○ had owned or leased the land adjacent to the instant ○○○○○ land and operated a farm. The said ○○○ land was not access to a public road without passing through the land owned or leased by the Defendant ○○○○. Accordingly, the Defendant ○○○ purchased the said ○○ land from several years to purchase the said ○○○ land and was planning to use it as part of the Plaintiff’s own operation, and then purchased the said land in 22 million won through negotiations.

B) Determination

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, beneficiaries are presumed to have bad faith and thus, they are liable to prove their good faith. In such a case, whether ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ is a beneficiary’s relationship, the circumstances leading up to the act of disposal between the debtor and beneficiaries, whether there are no special circumstances to doubt that the terms and conditions of the act of disposal thereof are normal transaction, and the circumstances after the act of disposal thereof are considered reasonable in light of logical and empirical rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da290, Jul. 25, 2013). However, according to each of the above facts, the Defendants’ assertion that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s 500,000 won, which is one of the above facts that the Defendants received 500,000 won or more from the Defendants’ 1050,000 won of the instant land.

(1) The Defendants are the actors or relatives by marriage of ○○○○, and even based on their own statements, Defendant Kang Jong-○, around 201, formed a soup and so on on the soup bank operated by ○○○○○ around 201 and then 3 and 4 set up a kind of fry on the soup bank thereafter, and Defendant Nam-○ is in a fry relationship with ○○○○ and a fry relationship with the fry○○, as the mother of fry○○, as the mother of fry○○, and Defendant Labor○ is an fyptian relationship with fry○○○○.

(2) Around October 2016, the Defendants prepared to the Plaintiff a written confirmation on the relationship between ○○ and the Defendants, and the circumstances at the time of the purchase of the instant ○○○ and the instant land. Each written confirmation contains the following: (a) there was a doubt as to whether the Defendants, at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, had a sudden situation with the owner due to the low price of the said ○○○○○○; (b) the Defendants knew that the Defendants knew of the need for money due to the occurrence of ○○ and the loan, and the tax imposed on the previous land disposal (see, e.g., the evidence No. 7 and No. 8 of the A).

(3) There is no objective circumstance that the Defendants actually used and profit-making land in accordance with the purpose of purchasing the land, as alleged by the Defendants, by cultivating crops on each of the above land, preparing for the preparation of graves or relocations, etc., for a period of one year and five months from the time the instant lawsuit was filed after the conclusion of the instant sales contract.

(4) In particular, Defendant Gangnam-○ and South ○○ alleged that they purchased the instant ○○○ land for a personal purpose, but they merely purchased it from ○○○○.

It does not seem that only purchased part of the co-ownership share (2/9 shares or 1/9 shares) of the land on the surface of ○○○, and that they have clearly identified the location and size of the land in the process of concluding the first and second sales contract, undergone a separate consultation with other co-owners about the exclusive use and profit-making of the land, or there is no problem in the exclusive use and profit-making of the land.

In this regard, the witness stated to the effect that the location of each part of the above ○○○○ and South ○○ had already been consulted with the previous co-owners on the use and profit-making of the above ○○○○○○, and the previous co-owners, and that the location of each part of the purchase was generally identified and used in division according to the share ratio among the co-owners. However, Defendant Gangnam○ and South ○○ appears to be a space between the previous co-owners as well as between the previous co-owners. In such a situation, it is difficult to understand the above important matters by oral agreement in light of the purpose of purchasing the above ○○○○○○, the share acquired by the former co-owners, the ratio of each share in the total share, the amount of each purchase price, the ordinary transaction practices, and the empirical rule, etc.

(5) The second and third sales contract drawn up between Defendant South ○, ○○, and ○○○ and the second and third sales contract drawn up in a state where there is no presence of a mediator. In particular, the second sales contract was set up by Defendant South ○, instead of Defendant South ○.

Preparation was made in the presence of ○○○○○, who is the birth of a student, in the presence of his wife.

(6) On April 2015, 2015, ○○○ purchased the instant land on the instant ○○○○○○○○, and sold the said land to Defendant ○○○ in an amount of 22 million won, which was lower than 24 million won only for two months.

(7) On July 9, 2015, 19 million won, after receiving a transfer from Defendant Labor○○○ on the same day, he/she fully withdrawn or remitted the amount on the same day, and on July 10, 2015, ○○○ and South ○○○.

From the date of transfer, most of the remaining trade amounts of KRW 50 million and KRW 25 million are expected to have been withdrawn or remitted on the same day as immediately after they were remitted. The place of use is unclear, and ○○ also did not appear as a witness to make a statement that could be able to obtain a payment.

(8) On April 24, 2015, Defendant South Korea: (a) stated that, in light of the time and amount of transfer of money, all financial transactions after transfer; (b) when Defendant South Korea transferred money to ○○○○○ in the name of ○○○○○; (c) on May 1, 2015, 200 won that ○○○ transferred to ○○○○○○○○○○○; (d) 1990,000 won borrowed from ○○○○○○; and (e) 5.5 million won deposited in the account of ○○○○○○○○○○; (c) on the basis of the evidence submitted by Defendant South Korea ○○○○○○○○, it is difficult to recognize that the money was remitted to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a normal account made between the money wired and the money wired to ○○○○○○○○○; and (d) when the money was transferred to ○○○○○.

(9) In relation to the source of the purchase price, Defendant Noh○ alleged that he/she prepared the purchase price of the instant land on the surface of ○○○○○ by neglecting cash borrowed from 5 million won and KRW 19 million borrowed from ○○○, which he/she was in his/her custody (a cash is kept in custody by ○○○, and a loan is granted to Defendant Noh○○○○), but it is insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by Defendant Noh○○, including the evidence No. 19, presented by Defendant Noh○, alone, was insufficient to establish the fact that he/she prepared the purchase price under the circumstances as alleged above,

(c) Revocation of fraudulent acts and reinstatement;

1) Defendant Gangnam-○ and South ○○○

According to the above facts, all of the first and second contracts on the instant land between Defendant Gangwon-do, and South ○○ and ○○○, should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the first and second contracts on the sales of the instant land should be restored to the original state, and the Defendant Gangwon-do among the instant land on the surface of ○○○○, bears a duty to implement the procedure for registration cancellation of each ownership transfer registration as to the shares of 2/9 and the shares of 1/9.

2) Defendant Nowon-○○ part

In a case where a third party acquires a mortgage after a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances, such as that the beneficiary may restore the subject matter to a state where there is no limitation on the mortgage and transfer it to the beneficiary, the creditor may seek compensation for the value of the subject matter in lieu of return of the subject matter. Furthermore, in a case where a compensation for value is ordered as such, the creditor shall pay compensation for the value of the subject matter to the extent of less of the lower amount than the creditor’s secured claim amount and the joint secured value of the subject matter of the fraudulent act as at the date of the closing of argument (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da57139, Feb. 9, 200; 203Da40286, Dec. 12,

However, in this case, Defendant Noh○○’s lawsuit on the instant surface land according to the third sales contract

The fact that ○○○ Agricultural Cooperative created a right to collateral security on the pertinent land after acquiring the right to collateral security, the transaction value of the pertinent land on the instant surface is 22 million won, and the Plaintiff’s tax claim amount on ○○○○○ is higher than that on the day of the closing of argument in the instant case. Since the value of the above ○○○○○○○ is confirmed to be the same amount as on the day of the closing of argument in the instant case, the third sales contract for the instant land on the instant ○○○○○○○○○○ shall be revoked as a fraudulent act within the limit of 22 million won, which is the value of the above ○○○○○○○○○○○’s land, and as a result, the Defendant Nowon○ has the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 22 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following the day of

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is accepted on the grounds of all.