act of transferring the sole property to payment in kind constitutes a fraudulent act.

An act of an obligor providing real estate, which is the sole property of a creditor, with payment in kind, to any one of the creditors, shall be deemed a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, barring special circumstances, as it reduces the obligor’s joint collateral of creditors, or makes only one of the creditors gain profits to one of the creditors by realizing equity among the creditors.

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

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

A. On April 20, 2005, the sales contract was revoked on April 20, 2005 with respect to ○○○○○○○○-○○ 258 square meters between Defendant New ○○ and Kim ○○○. Defendant New ○○ shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of restitution due to the revocation of fraudulent act with respect to ○○○○○○○ 654-○ 258 square meters on the ground of Macheon-si ○○○○○ ○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○

B. On May 2, 2005, the sales contract was revoked on May 2, 2005, 2005 with respect to ○○○○○○○, 454, but 479 square meters between Defendant Kim Jong-gun and Kim Il-hwan. Defendant Kim Jong-hwan performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer, which was completed on May 2, 2005 with respect to 479 square meters of ○○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○, ○○, ○, and ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

The court's reasoning concerning this case is the same as the written judgment of the court of the first instance, and thus, the court's reasoning is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court of first instance on the grounds that the defendants' appeal is without merit.

Daejeon District Court 2007Kadan6429 ( April 25, 2008)

1. 가. 피고 신◯◯과 소외 김◯◯ 사이의 ◯◯시 ◯◯면 ◯◯리 ◯◯◯-◯ 대 258 ㎡에 관한 2005.4.20.자 매매계약을 취소한다.

나. 피고 신◯◯은 소외 김◯◯에게 ◯◯시 ◯◯면 ◯◯리 ◯◯◯-◯ 대 258㎡ 에 관하여 사해행위취소로 인한 원상회복을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절 차를 이행하라.

2. 가. 피고 김□□과 소외 김◯◯ 사이의 ◯◯ ◯◯군 ◯◯면 ◯◯리 ◯◯◯ 전 479㎡에 관한 2005.5.2.자 매매계약을 취소한다.

나. 피고 김□□은 소외 김◯◯에게 ◯◯ ◯◯군 ◯◯면 ◯◯리 ◯◯◯ 전 479㎡에 관하여 대전지방법원 ◯◯등기소 2005.5.2. 접수 제3548홀호 마친 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를 이행하라.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

가. 원고의 소외 김◯◯에 대한 조세채권의 성립

원고는 조세탈루혐의로 김◯◯에 대한 세무조사를 실시하여 김◯◯이 가공경비를 계상하여 부가가치세를 신고한 사실을 밝혀내고, 김◯◯에게 2001년도부터 2005년도까지의 종합소득세와 2001년도 1분기부터 2005년도 1분기까지의 부가가치세에 관하여 다음 '세액표' 기재와 경정·고지(이하 '이 사건 조세경정결정'이라 한다.)하였는데, 김◯◯이 이를 납부하지 않아 이 사건 소제기 무렵인 2007.11.경 김◯◯이 체납한 종합소득세 및 부가가치세는 가산금을 포함하여 합계 186,175,390원(이하 '이 사건 조세채권'이라 한다)에 이른다.

(b) Disposal, etc.

(1) 피고 김□□은 김○○의 누나, 피고 신○○은 김○○의 매형으로서 피고들은 부부지간인바, 김○○은 2005.4.20. 피고 신○○에게 ◯◯시 ◯◯면 ◯◯리 ◯◯◯-◯ 대 258 ㎡(이하, /이 사건 제1토지'라 한다.)에 관하여 2005.4.20.자 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 마쳐 주었고, 2005.5.2. 피고 김□□에게 ◯◯ ◯◯군 ◯◯면 ◯◯리 ◯◯◯ 전 479㎡(이하, '이 사건 제2토지'라 한다.)에 관하여 2005.5.2.자 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 마쳐 주었는데, 당시 김○○은 이 사건 각 토지 외에 별다른 재산이 없었다.

(2) Meanwhile, with respect to the land No. 1 of this case, the registration of creation of a mortgage in the name of ○ Agricultural Cooperative was completed on April 28, 2005 with the maximum debt amount of 30 million won.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 1-1 through 17, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3-1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

In principle, an obligor, who can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation, should have occurred before doing a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. However, at the time of the juristic act, there is a high probability that the legal relationship which is the basis of establishment of the claim has already been established at the time of the juristic act, and that the claim is created by the near future legal relationship, and in a case where the claim has been realized in the near future, the claim may also become

In the instant case, the Plaintiff’s instant taxation claim was already liable for tax payment prior to each of the instant sales contracts, or due to the commencement of the relevant taxable periods, and there was a high probability to the effect that the tax claim is to be established in the near future based on such legal relations. In fact, the possibility is the fact that the taxation claim was established in the near future, and is the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

As seen above in the facts of recognition, the act of entering into each of the instant sales contracts with the Defendants with respect to each of the instant lands without any particular positive property shall be a fraudulent act that causes damage to the Plaintiff, the obligee, barring any special circumstances (in case where an obligor disposes of several consecutive properties, barring any special circumstance that the act should be viewed as a single act, it shall not be determined in a series of acts en bloc, but shall be determined in accordance with whether each act causes insolvency. However, in the instant case, it is reasonable to determine whether each of the instant sales contracts in light of the defendants' personal relation and the closeness at the time of entering into each of the instant sales contracts, etc.). In light of the above facts, Kim○-○ is presumed to have known that each of the instant sales contracts would prejudice the Plaintiff, the obligee, and on the other hand, the Defendants' bad faith is presumed to have been the beneficiary.

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

As to this, the Defendants: (a) lent the sum of KRW 397 million to Kim○○, who had operated the stone business, on several occasions as business funds, and (b) received the registration of ownership transfer on each land of this case from Kim○○ in accord and satisfaction with the above loan while demanding Kim○○ to repay the debt to Kim○○; (c) the Defendants actually lent the business funds to Kim○○; and (d) the Defendants received the registration of ownership transfer in good faith as to each land of this case without recognizing that Kim○ would harm the Plaintiff, who is the creditor due to the transfer of ownership on each land of this case, under the knowledge that Kim○ has been liable for tax liability to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is asserted to be unjust.

However, an act of offering real estate, the sole property of which is already missing in excess of the debt, as payment in kind, to one of the creditors, shall be deemed to constitute a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, barring any special circumstance. In light of the above circumstances and the legal relationship between Kim ○ and the Defendants as seen earlier, and the time when each registration of transfer of ownership of this case was completed, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants were bona fide and bona fide to presume the presumption of bad faith, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion shall not be accepted.

D. Sub-committee

(1) The part concerning Defendant New ○○

The sales contract for the land of this case concluded between the above defendant 1 and Kim ○ shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the above defendant shall be obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration for the above land to Kim ○○○. However, according to the above, since the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 28, 2005 after the conclusion of the sales contract for the above land and the registration of ownership transfer, the registration of ownership transfer for the above land was completed on April 28, 2005, the above land was completed, the defendant shall be obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the original state due to

(2) The part as to Defendant Kim Jong-chul

The sales contract for the land No. 2, which was concluded between the above defendant and Kim Jong-tae, shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the above defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed with respect to the above land to Kim ○○.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.

Table of Tax Amount;

No.

Items of Taxation

Time of Reversion

Liability for Tax Payment

Date of establishment

Deadline for payment

Additional Notice

Amount of tax (source)

Amount in arrears ( won)

1

Global Income Tax

203

December 31, 2003

July 31, 2006

4,628,422

5,600,370

2

Global Income Tax

205

December 31, 2005

August 31, 2006

2,213,266

2,651,350

3

Global Income Tax

202

December 31, 2002

February 28, 2007

9,885,105

11,130,610

4

Global Income Tax

205

December 31, 2005

February 28, 2007

19,564,661

2,029,750

5

Global Income Tax

201

December 31, 2001

February 28, 2007

12,305,916

13,856,440

6

Global Income Tax

204

December 31, 2004

February 28, 2007

13,727,174

15,456,740

7

Global Income Tax

203

December 31, 2003

February 28, 2007

9,556,232

10,760,270

8

Value-added Tax

The second quarter of 2003

December 31, 2003

December 31, 2005

1,807,478

2,338,650

9

Value-added Tax

The second quarter of 2004

December 31, 2004

February 28, 2007

1,847,430

2,080,130

10

Value-added Tax

The first quarter of 2005

June 30, 2005

February 28, 2007

683,404

769,500

11

Value-added Tax

The second quarter of 2003

December 31, 2003

February 28, 2007

14,834,420

16,703,530

12

Value-added Tax

The first quarter of 2002

June 30, 2002

February 28, 2007

5,065,000

5,703,190

13

Value-added Tax

The first quarter of 2003

6.30

February 28, 2007

29,501,460

3,218,580

14

Value-added Tax

The second quarter of 2001

December 31, 2001

February 28, 2007

17,990,250

20,256,990

15

Value-added Tax

The second quarter of 2002

December 31, 2002

February 28, 2007

11,700,700

13,174,920

16

Value-added Tax

The first quarter of 2001

June 30, 200

February 28, 2007

9,275,700

10,444,370

Consolidateds

186,175,390