Revocation, etc. of Fraudulent Act

In excess of debt, it is reasonable to view that the act of disposal of property has been aware that the act of disposal of property has reduced the joint security of other creditors against himself/herself and has harmed other creditors.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The ○○ regional tax office operated ○○○○ Company, and conducted a general integrated tax investigation with respect to ○○○, a representative director of ○○○○○○, from August 19, 2005 to September 15, 2005. An Park○○ had sold the instant real estate, the only real estate of which was its own punishment, to the Defendant on August 24, 2005 during that period (hereinafter referred to as “the instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the purport of the claim.

B. The taxes imposed on Park ○-○ after the above general tax audit are as follows.

(1) With respect to the value-added tax of ○○○○ Company, the head of the ○○ Tax Office issued a decision of correction to increase the value-added tax for the first and second years in 2001, 1 and 2 years in 2002, 1 and 2 years in 2003, and notified 45,162,973 won in total of value-added tax increased to ○○○ on October 20, 2005 ( = 13,251,884 won in January 1, 2001 + 72,304,265 won in January 2, 2002 + 167,980, 343 won in 202 + 138,483 won in 138,4830, 2083 won in 203 + 305,300.31.31.365

(2) With respect to the value-added tax of ○○○○○○○ Company, the head of the ○○○ Tax Office notified that the increased value-added tax should be paid not later than October 31, 2005, after the decision of correction was made for each increase of the value-added tax for the second and second half years in 2003, and for the first and second years in 2004, and then for each increase of the value-added tax, the head of the ○○ Tax Office notified that the increased value-added tax should be paid not later than October 31, 2005. However, on December 26, 2005, the said company failed to pay the said tax, which was 238,676,370 won ( = 86,128,320 won for the second period in 203 + 9,691,780 won for the first period in 204, 2004 + 275,2750 won for the payment period in 25.

(3) As to ○○○○○○ Company’s corporate tax, the head of ○○○ Tax Office notified the company to pay the increased corporate tax by October 31, 2005, after the company designated ○○○ as the secondary taxpayer, by 231,9,670 won in total of the increased corporate tax and additional tax ( = 82,67,350 won in 203 + 148,529,690 won in 204 + 690 won in 2005 + 148,690 won in 205 + 6766, 306 in 205).

(4) On October 31, 2005, the head of △△△ Tax notified that the total global income tax increased to Park○○ by 396,277,580 won ( = 189,470,940 won in 2002 + 206,806,640 won in 203) should be paid until October 31, 2005, after a decision of correction was made to increase the global income tax in 2002 and 2003.

C. The appraised value of the total assets owned by ○○ on August 2005 shall not extend to the total amount of taxes imposed on ○○ as described in the above sub-paragraph (b).

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

(1) In principle, a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation should have arisen before the obligor performs a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. However, there has already been legal relations which form the basis of establishment of the claim at the time of the juristic act, and there is high probability as to the fact that the claim is established in the near future in the near future, and in a case where a claim has been established by realizing the probability in the near future, such claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da12004, Jul. 9,

(2) According to the facts acknowledged earlier in this case, although ○○○ did not have any tax claim acknowledged prior to the Plaintiff’s Park○ on August 24, 2005, which was at the time of the instant property disposal act with the Defendant, it was highly probable that ○○○○ was a tax imposing disposition on ○○○○○ in the near future by conducting a general tax investigation on August 19, 2005 through September 15, 2005, and thus, it was highly probable that ○○○○○○ was a tax imposing disposition on ○○○○○ in the near future by notifying ○○○○○ to the effect that the increase in the value-added tax on ○○○○○ and the income tax on ○○○○○ was corrected on October 20, 2005, and that the Plaintiff’s tax office’s tax claim and the Plaintiff’s tax office’s increase in the value-added tax on ○○○ was a person liable for tax payment at around 26, 2005.

B. Whether the act of disposing of the instant property constitutes a fraudulent act

Unless there are other special circumstances, the act of an obligor selling real estate, its sole property, or offering it to one of the obligees as payment in kind, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other obligees. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that Park○○’s act of disposal of the instant property becomes a speculative act against the plaintiff, who is another obligee, and Park○○○, who was subject to a general consolidated tax investigation by ○○ regional tax office by failing to pay taxes when operating the enterprise, was aware that the instant act of disposal in kind was committed by reducing the common security of other obligees, and it is presumed that the defendant, who is the punishment of Park○○○, was aware of such circumstances.

C. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(1) The defendant was transferred the real estate of this case under the agreement to transfer it to the defendant, and further, from October 31, 200 to September 31, 2001, the defendant was jointly owned by 15 with a view to making it good for the loan conditions of 10,000,000 won to 20,000. In the case where the defendant lent 30,000 won to 20,000 on May 7, 2003 to 205 and the above loan is not repaid until May 7, 2005, in accordance with the agreement to transfer the real estate of this case to 200, and the defendant did not accept the defendant's assertion that the above real estate was transferred to 200,000 won to 200,000 won to 200,0000 won to 200,000 won to 200,000 won, and there was no evidence that the defendant provided the real estate of this case to 200,0,0,000.

(2) The Defendant asserted that Park○-○’s act of disposing of the instant property was a bona fide beneficiary who was unaware of the fact that the Defendant would prejudice the Plaintiff, a creditor, but there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant acted in good faith with respect to Park○’s fraudulent act. In light of the fact that the Defendant was a pro-friendly type of Park○ and that the Defendant was working in the above business entity run by Park○-○○, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant did not have any awareness that the Defendant was unable to fully satisfy the obligee’s claims due to the instant act of disposing of the property. Therefore, the Defendant’s defense is groundless.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the act of disposal of the property of this case must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant, as a beneficiary, has the obligation to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted in all of the grounds, and the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate with this conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant's appeal.