Transfer income tax claims based on the sale contract before land transaction permission also become the preserved right of creditor's right of revocation.

Although the sales contract of this case on land within the land transaction permission area was in a flexible invalidation, the basic legal relationship of the establishment of the capital gains tax claim was established even if the sale contract of this case was in the state of passive invalidation, and in fact, the capital gains tax claim against the transferor who died of the State is legally established and becomes the preserved right of revocation.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2011 Gohap 15134 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AAA 1 other

March 8, 2012

May 3, 2012

1. The contract of donation concluded on December 15, 2006 and December 19, 2006 between the defendant AA and 0B shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 000.

2 피고 이CC은 원고에게 000원 및 이에 대한 이 판결 확정일 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지 연 5%의 비윷에 의한 금원을 지급하라.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 24, 2006, the Hague, Defendant AA, and EE entered into a contract for sale of FF Loans (hereinafter referred to as "FF Loans") of FF Loans (hereinafter referred to as "the instant contract") for 00 won as follows. FF loans deposited the following amount of KRW 00 on May 24, 2006 in the accounts of ADD OOdong branch in ADD for the payment of the above purchase price, and deposited the amount of KRW 00 on June 26, 2006, with the amount of KRW 00 on November 15, 2006, and the amount of KRW 00 on December 12, 2006, with the amount of KRW 10 on December 10, 2006, respectively, and deposited the remaining amount of KRW 10 on the land set up by the Agricultural Cooperative on December 12, 206.

(b)

(1) ADD deposited KRW 00 on May 24, 2006, and KRW 00 on June 27, 2006, and KRW 16.00 on November 16, 2006, with KRW 200 on December 15, 2006, and deposited KRW 00 on December 19, 206, into the accounts of Defendant AA’s new bank OO branch.

(2) On December 18, 2006, Defendant AA deposited KRW 000 from the above new bank account, and deposited it into the OOB account of Defendant AA’s National Bank (hereinafter “OB account”).

(3) On February 12, 2007, Defendant Myanmar withdrawn KRW 000 on a check (the check number -----------) and on February 16, 2007, the check was deposited into the agricultural bank account of the owner KimJ, the owner of the land and the agricultural bank account of the 395 square meters of forest land and 495 square meters of 000 square meters of forest land and 395 square meters of 195 square meters of 200 square meters of forest land and 395 square meters of 200 square meters of 207.

(4) On March 16, 2007, the Defendant AA deposited KRW 000 in the said new bank account as a check ( check number -----). The check was deposited in the account of the head of KAK, the spouse of the former owner of title No. 0000 (OOO apartment 000, 000) purchased by the Defendant ACC on March 21, 2007.

(5) In addition, the defendant AA deposited KRW 000 on April 30, 2007 in the check ( check number -----) and this check was deposited in the account of KA on May 2, 2007.

(c)

(1) There was a final return on capital gains tax on the transfer of the instant land, which was made at around 2009 the land transaction permission for the instant land transaction, and which was made on May 31, 2010 as the reporter on May 31, 2010.

(2) On November 1, 2010, the head of the Yeongdeungpopo Tax Office designated the Defendant ACC, ADD, and AE as the inheritor of the 0B (Death September 3, 2008) who did not pay the said transfer income tax, and notified the transfer income tax calculated on November 30, 2010, for which the notified tax amount was paid, and the Defendant AAA, AD, and AE were not paid. As of June 27, 201, the delinquent amount of the said transfer income tax as of June 27, 201 is 0 won.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, and the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including household numbers), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is the cause of the claim in this case, and the defendant AA entered into each gift agreement on December 15, 2006 and December 19, 2006 between 0B and 00 won, and received 1.1 billion won out of the purchase price of the land in this case, and paid 1.1 billion won to the defendant ACC. This constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the interests of other creditors, and it is asserted that this constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the interests of other creditors, and that the above gift agreement was cancelled within the scope of KRW 00,000, and that the subsequent purchaser is liable for damages of KRW 00,000, which was paid to the defendant ACC as the subsequent purchaser.

B. The defendants' assertion

In this regard, the Defendants asserted that, as the instant land was located within the land transaction permission zone, 0B died in 0B while the instant sales contract was invalid in circulation, and 0B cannot be deemed a person liable for the transfer income tax, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against 0B against 0B cannot be a preserved right.

3. Determination

(a) Claims for preservation;

The sales contract in the area where land transaction is permitted shall take effect only with the permission of the competent authority, the effect of the contract takes effect, and the effect of the claim does not take place before obtaining permission, and even without obtaining land transaction permission, the seller was first paid the purchase price and kept in custody, and it cannot be said that there was any income from the transfer of assets subject to capital gains or any income from the transfer of assets. However, the sales contract later becomes effective retroactively to the contract after obtaining permission. However, even if the contracting party died in the distribution invalidation of the land transaction permission, the contract becomes effective retroactively to the contract, and if the land transaction permission is granted later, the time of the transfer is the date of settling the balance, and the debtor of the capital gains tax becomes the contracting party. In addition, it is reasonable to view that there is a legal relationship that has already been formed as the basis of the establishment of the claim at the time of fraudulent act, and that there is a claim based on the transfer income tax in the future, and it is reasonable to see that the transfer income tax has been established under the real condition of the claim under this case.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

(1) Conclusion of donation contracts

Based on the above facts, the following facts are found, and Defendant 0B did not receive the amount equivalent to its own share out of the purchase price of the instant land from ADD from May 24, 2006 to November 16, 2006, and Defendant 1 paid all the amount equivalent to Defendant AAA’s share out of the purchase price of the instant land. Defendant 2 paid the above KRW 300 million to Defendant CC, used the above 300 million to purchase the repurchase claim, and Defendant 2 used the above 00 won to purchase the repurchase claim, and the above 00 won was deposited into the said new bank account under Defendant A’s name, and the part of the fund was used for Defendant 2’s purchase price, and it cannot be seen that the above 00 won was deposited for each of the above personal donations, and that Defendant 200 won was deposited for each of the above 000 won, and it cannot be seen that Defendant 300 billion won was deposited for each of the above 000B.

(2) Revocation of fraudulent act and restitution to original state

In light of the above facts, a fraudulent act constitutes a fraudulent act of 00 won or less due to the reduction of the debtor's property, and the joint collateral of 00 won or less, so that the creditors cannot fully satisfy the claims (Supreme Court Decision 97Da57320 delivered on May 12, 198). In principle, it is necessary to determine whether the subsequent purchaser's obligation to return 00 won or less due to the fraudulent act of 00 won or less, and that the subsequent purchaser's obligation to return 200 won or less should be considered as one act if there are special circumstances to consider that the subsequent act of 00 won or less was committed, and that the subsequent purchaser's obligation to return 100 won or less should be considered as one act of 00 won or less, and that the subsequent purchaser's obligation to return 200 won or less should be considered as one act of 00 won or more, and that the subsequent purchaser's obligation to return 200 won or more should be considered as one act of 000.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.