Whether it constitutes a fraudulent act

In light of the fact that the transfer of real estate takes place 4 days after the tax investigation, it is recognized that the transferor's intention of harm is recognized and the transferee who is the beneficiary is presumed to be malicious.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act)

1. On November 10, 2006, the lease and business license transfer agreement concluded on November 10, 2006 with respect to the amusement room with the 00-00 0,00-0 0 0,000 0-0 00 0,000 0 00 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,00 2,00 1,

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 150 million won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to 10-00,000, 00-0 above ground brick 103.14 square meters of the three-story stores of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○○○○-dong, operated a general game room (hereinafter “instant store”) with a trade name in the “○○land” at the place of lease, after setting the lease deposit of 100 million won, from January 12, 2004 to November 12, 2006, with the lease term of 103.14 square meters of the three-story stores.

B. The director of the tax office of Yeongdeungpo-gu under the Plaintiff imposed a disposition of imposing value-added tax and interest income tax totaling KRW 2,614,696,870 on the facts of underreporting sales from January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2006, as shown in the attached Table.

The attached Table shall be attached Table.

(unit: Won)

Items of Taxation

Reversion

Date of establishment of tax liability;

Deadline for payment

Amount of tax

Value-added Tax

100 1. 1

June 30, 2004

January 31, 2007

568,540,630

Value-added Tax

204.2

December 31, 2004

January 31, 2007

545,707,500

Value-added Tax

1, 2005

June 30, 2005

January 31, 2007

518,782,880

Value-added Tax

2, 2005

December 31, 2005

January 31, 2007

439,881,010

Value-added Tax

1, 2006

June 30, 2006

January 31, 2007

535,184,850

Interest Income Tax

January 2004

January 31, 2004

January 31, 2007

6,600,000

Total

2,614,696,870

C. On November 10, 2006, on the same day, 006, ○○ transferred the entire right to lease and goodwill of the instant store to the Defendant, who is the Dong book, at the price of KRW 150 million, and notified the said transfer to ○○ on the same day.

D. On November 12, 2006, the above lease term expires, and the defendant entered into a lease contract with regard to ○○ and the store of this case on November 13, 2006, setting the lease term of KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 5.3 million, and the lease term from November 13, 2006 to June 30, 2007. The lease deposit was to be replaced with the deposit paid by 00 days.

E. On June 14, 2007, the Defendant terminated the above lease agreement with the U.S., paid 7,979,000 won for the remainder of the lease deposit after deducting 2,02.1 million won for delay from the U.S., and on June 15, 2007, the Defendant transferred the instant store to Seosan, and received 80,000,000 won for the premium for the facility. After doing so, the Defendant paid le0,000 won for the acquisition of the right to lease and the right to operate the instant store to leap○.

F. As of November 10, 2006, when the right to lease and the right to operate the instant store was transferred, the active property of 000,000 won in the aggregate of 00,000 square meters per 391,754 square meters per 13,330,000,000,000 won per 40,000,000 won per 0,000,000,000 won per 0,000,000,000, in addition to the right to lease and the right to operate the instant store, in addition to the right to lease and the right to operate the instant store, and there is a tax liability of KRW 2,614,696,870,00 per

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, evidence Nos. 1 to 3, 5-1 to 3-5, each entry of evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Gap evidence No. 4-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(i) A preserved claim;

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s right to lease and the right to operate the instant store prior to November 10, 2006, had a tax payment claim of KRW 2,614,696,870, which is the sum of value-added tax and interest income tax on leap days before November 10, 206, and thus, the above tax payment claim is the creditor’s right to cancel.

2) Fraudulent act

A) For a debtor’s legal act to constitute a fraudulent act against a creditor, it means that the debtor’s claim cannot be fully satisfied due to a decrease in the liability assets of the debtor’s liability due to the debtor’s legal act, resulting in a shortage of common security for general creditors or a lack of common security already in a short state.

B) As to the instant case, the right to lease and the right to operate the instant store in 000 won at the time of the transfer of the right to lease and the right to operate the instant store in 00,000 won in aggregate and 2,614,696,870 won in value-added tax and interest income tax on the Plaintiff, while active property is excluded from the right to lease and the right to operate the instant store in 00,000 won in total, there is no specific property in excess of the market value of 391 square meters prior to 391,000 square meters prior to 405,000,000 won in total (26.7 million won in a market value) and 40 million won in market value prior to 405,000 won in 0,000 won in total. Ultimately, the right to lease and the right to operate the instant store in 00, the debtor, thereby undermining the Plaintiff, who is the creditor.

3) A private will;

A) According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 4-1 through 4, the head of Yangcheon Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control conducted a tax investigation on the high-income earners on November 6, 2006. Through the above tax investigation, he confirmed the underreporting of sales from January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2006, and it was recognized that the head of the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office preserved the national tax attachment on the claim for return of the lease deposit of the instant store, which is the business place of ○○ on December 11, 2006, before the determination of national tax, and that the transfer of the instant store after November 6, 2006 was conducted after the tax investigation on ○○, and four days after the date of the instant store transfer contract, ○○ is presumed to have been aware of the lack of joint security in the status that was already insufficient due to the instant store transfer contract, and that ○○ is a beneficiary of the Defendant’s bad faith.

B) Determination on the Defendant’s bona fide defense

Since the defendant's one's own operation of the game room business was able to report the business profitability and did not know at all about the amount of tax to be paid by 00 days, the defendant's defense that she was a bona fide beneficiary is insufficient to recognize the above only by the descriptions of the evidence No. 4-4, No. 1-3, No. 4-4, and No. 1-3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the defendant'

(b) Methods and scope of reinstatement;

(i) the method of reinstatement;

A) If a creditor’s revocation of fraudulent act and a claim for restitution are acknowledged, the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is obligated to return the subject matter of the fraudulent act to the debtor as restitution, and if it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the subject matter of the fraudulent act, the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is liable to compensate for the equivalent amount to the value of the subject matter of the fraudulent act as performance of the duty to restore if it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the subject matter. Here, it refers to cases where the creditor cannot expect the realization of the performance from the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser in light of the concept of social experience, law or transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da58316, May 15, 1998).

B) As to the instant case, on November 10, 2006, on the part of 150 million won, 00 million won was transferred to the Defendant with all the right to lease and operating rights of the instant store, and on the same day, notified the Defendant of the said transfer on November 12, 2006. On November 13, 2006, 10 million won, monthly rent 5.3 million won, monthly rent 5 million won, from November 13, 2006 to June 30, 207, the lease contract was concluded with the Defendant to substitute the lease and operating rights of the instant store with the deposit that was paid on June 14, 2007, since it is impossible or considerably difficult for the Defendant to recover the lease deposit and operating rights of the instant store with the deposit that was paid on June 14, 2007, since it constitutes a fraudulent act of considerable amount of 200,000 won and more than 970,000 won, which was paid by the Defendant.

2) Scope of compensation for value

It is reasonable to view that the value of the right to lease and the right to operate the store of this case which is the object of the fraudulent act is leap ○, and that the defendant was 150 million won agreed upon at the time of the transfer of this case on November 10, 2006.

Since the defendant claimed that 150,000,000 won, which is the total amount of the transfer price, was returned from 00,000 won, rather than 100,000 won due to the difference of land in 00,000 won, the defendant paid 7,979,000 won after deducting 20,000,000 won from 00,000 won due to delay from 00,000 won, the above fact is the same as the above, but if 00,000 won was agreed that 0,000 won should be transferred and taken over between 00,000 won and 4,000 won in consideration of the fact that 00,000 won was paid from 00,000 won, the defendant's assertion that 10,0000,000 won was paid for 1.5,000,000 won in total due to the above fact that 00,000 won was paid for 1,00,000,00 won.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, on November 10, 2006, the contract for the right to lease and the right to operate the instant store was cancelled, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff compensation for the damages for delay at the rate of 50 million won per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from the day following the day when the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.