Revocation of Fraudulent Act

donation of money to his or her dependent in excess of his or her obligation constitutes a fraudulent act.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

Suwon District Court and Yangyang Branch 2017Guhap70659

The amount of KRW 10 million shall be the check re-issued at a face value of KRW 100 million among the checks received in the balance.

Recognizing the fact that a certificate of financial transaction is issued again in 20 copies of the authorized check.

on the other hand, each entry of Gap evidence 3 to 8 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

According to the above regional tax office under the Plaintiff’s A’s affiliated regional tax office, as seen earlier, A’s instant trade vehicle

the check issued under this title was re-issued in the number of small checks, and tracking the check;

At the end, on July 26, 2016, the act that “A” paid the remainder to the Defendant and the instant case.

There is a suspicion that it is impossible to collect delinquent taxes against A due to the gift contract of real estate.

Therefore, in relation to the above payment of the balance, an application for provisional seizure against the financial account under the name of the defendant is filed;

As to the contract of donation of each real estate of this case, the application for provisional injunction against each of the above real estate shall be made;

The fact that A and the defendant, etc. are required to file a criminal complaint is prepared, and whether the complaint was filed

The National Tax Service accused a criminal charge against A, Defendant, etc. as a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on March 2017.

may be recognized.

In addition, the following circumstances revealed in light of the aforementioned legal principles:

In other words, when the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant has been made on each of the real estate in this case, the plaintiff's tax

It is difficult to see that a public official was aware of his/her disposal act, and ② was made as of September 8, 2015.

The contents of "the selection review table of each real estate subject to tracking investigation" are the fraudulent act by the gift contract of each real estate of this case.

It means only that there is possibility that the plaintiff's tax official may constitute the above gift contract.

In addition to the existence of A's debt excess status at the time, and the intention of A and the defendant to commit suicide.

It is difficult to deem that A and the Defendant were aware of the sales of the instant case as seen earlier.

have been re-issued in the form of a small check in which the amount is not payable, and the check is subject to a reasonable time during the tracking period.

under the name of the Plaintiff, taking into account that it was a situation, the financial transaction of the Plaintiff’s No. A’s account; and

A merely by inquiring about the details of request and the fact that the Defendant’s check was re-issued;

It seems that there was also a circumstance that the excess status has been or the excess status has further deepened.

(4) At the time of entering into a gift agreement of each of the instant real estate, as seen later.

Comprehensively examining the fact that each real estate of this case was not the only active property A.

Myeon. On July 2016, the time when a considerable period of time has elapsed for the investigation of traceability against A.

26.A's avoidance by fraudulent act, knowing that A would prejudice the plaintiff at the time of its preparation.

The fact that the act of paying the remainder of this case to Gohap and the contract was entered into as a gift of each real estate of this case

B. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was known to him, and the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was transferred before 2017.

2.16. Records are apparent to have been filed;

3) Accordingly, the Defendant’s main defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

Tax liability shall be established for the establishment of such tax liability when the requirements for taxation prescribed by law are satisfied.

Tax authorities or taxpayers are not required to do any special act, and the taxpayer is taxed.

It is naturally established without the need to recognize the fulfillment of the requirements (Supreme Court Decision 201No. 14 May 14, 2009).

High Court Decision 2008Da84458, etc.) The time when a transfer income tax claim becomes a tax base.

The last day of the month in which the amount occurred (Article 21(2)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). The amount of the preserved claim shall be the amount.

Interest or delay damages incurred after the fraudulent act until the closing of the fact-finding proceedings shall be included, and national tax

Fraudulent act as a kind of incidental tax imposed in the sense of interest in arrears;

The additional charges incurred after the end of the arguments in fact-finding proceedings are also included in preserved claims (Supreme Court Decision 6 June 2007).

29. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, supra)

In light of the above legal principles, according to the health class, Gap evidence No. 1 as to the instant case

Tax liabilities A in arrears as of the date of the closing of the instant argument is 1,212,811,220 of capital gains tax.

The plaintiff's above taxation claim against A can be recognized as having collected the purchase price of this case.

It is established on March 31, 2013, the last day of the month in which the plaintiff was paid, and the state that the plaintiff was a fraudulent act.

each gift contract of this case with the highest time to enter into an agreement of 727 billion won

As of March 28, 2013, A has already been liable for the payment of capital gains tax to the Plaintiff.

that the capital gains tax claim is established in the near future with the establishment of abstract tax liability

The possibility of the Do was high, and thereafter the plaintiff decided and notified the transfer income tax to A.

Since the possibility of realizing transfer income tax bonds has been specifically determined, the plaintiff's above tax

It is reasonable to view that a claim becomes a preserved claim for the revocation of a fraudulent act.

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

1) The parties' assertion

A) The plaintiff's assertion

A and the Defendant on March 28, 2013 regarding the balance of KRW 727 million in the instant case as of March 28, 2013

Gift contract of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the gift contract of this case") and 2 November 12, 2014

The contract of donation of KRW 9,592 (hereinafter referred to as "the contract of donation of KRW 9,592") and ③ each of the contracts of this case

both a contract of gift of real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, and a contract of gift of real estate between a debtor A and a beneficiary is void.

Since all intentions are recognized, each of the above gift contracts should be revoked.

B) Defendant’s assertion

The Plaintiff entered into a donation contract of KRW 727 million between A and the Defendant.

However, on March 28, 2013, the remainder payment is made under the name of the recipient of the balance.

It is only the date of re-issuance of the list, and there is no contract of donation itself, and even if there is no contract of donation, the contract of donation.

Even if a decision was made, as alleged by the Plaintiff, with regard to the total of KRW 727 billion on March 28, 2013, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

A contract of gift was not entered into. In addition, as alleged by the Plaintiff, a contract of gift was entered into.

of the above KRW 700,000,000, which was re-issued as small checks, and the name of the defendant

It is difficult to view that the KRW 500 million deposited in the account of the Speaker was ultimately reverted to the Defendant.

In addition, as of March 28, 2013, it is admitted that A was in excess of his/her obligation.

No evidence has been submitted.

2) Determination

A) Whether the gift contract of KRW 727 million was actually made

The following documents can be acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above and the purport of the entire pleading:

(1) deposit into an account under the name of the defendant, as described in paragraph (1)(a).

A disposition in respect of checks with a total amount of KRW 727 billion, such as delivery to a third party after endorsement, etc.

A. The check was re-issued upon which A received the remainder of this case.

(2) The said KRW 727 billion has been paid again to A or the said money has been deposited.

Korea

Affiliated Regional Tax Office shall have jurisdiction over each of the instant real estate owned by 'A' on September 8, 2015 and

Donation of the remainder, etc. to the defendant who is a child. Donation of each of the above immovables shall be subject to revocation of a fraudulent act.

Gift, such as the balance, etc. of this case, is concealed in the name of the defendant.

The suspicion of avoidance from disposition on default is high due to the donation to the High Court. The above examination was conducted, and the suspicion of fraudulent act is high.

(h) Preparation of a review table of selection subject to tracking investigation, stating that "to be selected as subject of tracking investigation" is "to be selected as subject of tracking investigation;

(3) The commissioner of the regional tax office of the Plaintiff-affiliated regional tax office on November 16, 2015 and November 17, 2015

his financial transaction details and the details of his non-demanded transactions for the Agricultural Cooperative Account

On February 5, 2016, the Defendant’s re-one million won at par value on April 17, 2013 from the Bank of Korea Co., Ltd.

A check issued (the check number 175168, the check number 175168, and the check received with the balance of this case, face value 700

The re-issuance of 100,000 won check shall be made on March 18, 2014.

on March 20, 2014, two copies of a check re-issued at par value of KRW 100 million (the check No. 1755147, 175151, 1755151)

Kim Jong-be

There is no material to deem that A was actually using the nominal account;

③ In addition to the Defendant’s donation of KRW 720 million among the remainder of the instant case from A, the Defendant was not the Defendant.

Section 1-A. The reasons why it is possible to acquire and dispose of the check equivalent to KRW 727 billion out of the entry of paragraph 1-a.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant paid the balance of this case from A.

around March 28, 2013, after receiving and using a check equivalent to the above KRW 727 million, it was used.

It is reasonable to view that the authority on the check delivered as above has been finally reverted to the defendant.

Therefore, around March 28, 2013, the gift fraternity of KRW 727 million between A and the Defendant of this case

(b) The amount, time, etc. shall be the subject of revocation of a fraudulent act; and

In conclusion, the defendant's argument on this part is not accepted.

B) Whether the donation contract of KRW 727 million constitutes a fraudulent act

(1) The fraudulent act is an act of disposing of the debtor's property and thereby the debtor's property

joint security in a state of deficiency or shortage of claims due to a decrease in the amount of such

the creditor's claims cannot be fully satisfied due to the lack of one story.

Therefore, such fraudulent act is already in excess of obligations before the debtor disposes of the property.

(2) In the case of an act in question, the act in question may only be deemed to be in excess of the obligation.

Even in cases where it may be established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da33602, Jan. 13, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles, each description and change of Doptop, Gap Nos. 3 and 5 (including Gapto numbers)

According to the purport of the theory as a whole, a donation contract of KRW 727 billion between A and the defendant of this case

A’s property status at the time of March 28, 2013, which was around the time of this conclusion, is as listed in the following table:

A. According to the above facts of recognition, A’s remainder of the remainder of this case to the Defendant 7

20 million won is donated by donation of KRW 27 million, thereby exceeding the obligation, as the negative property exceeds the positive property.

A’s general creditors, including the Plaintiff, etc., unless there is a special reason to the contrary.

of this case 727 million won, which may cause a shortage of common liability property for the purpose of this section

Gift contract is a fraudulent act.

(2) As to this, the Defendant included A’s active property in the entire sales price of this case.

I asserts that it should be required.

In the name of A, 48,973,247 won out of the down payment of this case 220 million won.

The Nonghyup Bank Account from the next day to February 2013 to the last day of February 2013.

The sum of KRW 5,363,00 has been remitted to the account in the name of the title (A)

The balance is already included in the aforementioned active property, 70 million won out of the intermediate payment of this case 860 million won

70 million won shall be deposited into or repaid from the account under the name of the defendant as specified in the following table:

Part 3 of the Check with par value 10 million won at the time of March 28, 2013 (the check number)

17296945, 17296946, 17296947) and 60 million won checks (the check number 17296966) at par value.

The remainder of KRW 90 million (90 million remaining in the part payment of this case) is already active property.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit, since it can be recognized as included in the above).

C) Whether the donation contract of KRW 9,592 constitutes a fraudulent act

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5 (including paper numbers) and the whole pleadings,

The fact that 9,592 won in the balance of the NongHyup Bank account in A on November 12, 2014 was remitted to the defendant;

At the time of November 12, 2014, A’s property status can be recognized as described in the following table:

According to the above facts, A donates the above KRW 9,592 to the defendant, and A

Since the lack of common liability property for general creditors further deepens the shortage of common liability property, this case

The gift contract of KRW 9,592 is considered to be a fraudulent act.

D) Whether the gift contract of each of the instant real estate constitutes a fraudulent act

On November 13, 2014, a donation contract was concluded between A and the Defendant on each of the instant real estate.

as seen earlier, the entries and the whole pleadings of Gap's 3 to 5 (including the paper numbers)

According to the purport of the above, at the time of November 13, 2014, A’s financial status is as listed below:

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the market price of A 260,2600,000

A’s joint liability for general creditors by donating each of the instant real property in a quantity equivalent to the cost

Since the shortage of assets has further deepened the shortage of assets, the gift contract of each real estate of this case is a fraudulent act.

It can be seen as constituting a case.

E) A's intention to commit suicide and the defendant's bad faith

The following circumstances revealed in accordance with the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleading:

In other words, although A was paid the purchase price of the instant case, A shall report the transfer income tax to the Plaintiff.

There is no special reason for most of their active property having property value.

As a result, the Plaintiff’s donation to the Defendant is substantially against A who is a large-amount delinquent taxpayer

It is impossible to enforce compulsory execution, and that A and the defendant are very closely related persons between men and women, and

Various circumstances revealed in the proceedings of pleadings of this case, such as the timing and circumstances of each gift contract of this case

In full view of all the above, A shall cause the general creditor to be harmed by each contract of this case.

It is reasonable to see that the debtor was well aware of the circumstances, and the debtor's intention of deception A is recognized.

Thus, the defendant's bad faith, which is the beneficiary of the above fraudulent act, is presumed also.

(c) Reinstatement;

Each contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, it must be revoked, and the original award.

As a uniform, the defendant shall conclude a contract on donation of each of the above real estates to A.

(2) 77,009,592 shall apply to the Plaintiff for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration.

Won = KRW 727 billion, which A donated to the Defendant, + KRW 9592,00,000,000) and this judgment

Damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day after the date of confirmation to the day of full payment.

have an obligation to pay.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted in its entirety on the grounds of its reasoning and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.

on July 21, 2017

on October 2017 08

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 22, 2013, B and A: C between Company B and C, E, E, E, E, Ga

The purchase price of the 2.137 billion won (the contract amount of KRW 22.2 billion) for the purchase price of the 423-1,000 won and the 12-1,000 won

At the time of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 860 million is KRW 1 billion in the remainder on February 28, 2013, and KRW 1 billion in the remainder on March 3, 2013.

28. Conclusion of a sales contract for each payment) and from B Co., Ltd.

The above purchase price (hereinafter referred to as "the purchase price in this case") was fully paid.

A on March 28, 2013, the balance of this case at par value of KRW 1 billion (the check number)

18757245) Payment on the same day, 150 million won check 9, 100 million won check

A check with a total amount of KRW 727 million shall be re-issued in one sheet of KRW 7 million, and among them, a check with a total of KRW 727 million shall be re-issued.

Deposit into the account under the name of the defendant, or by endorsement of the defendant, as stated in A's statement;

It was delivered to the third party of the year, or re-issued in small amount, such as KRW 1 million through KRW 10 million.

B. A does not report the transfer income tax pursuant to the above sales contract to the Ctax secretary under the Plaintiff’s control.

C. On April 2, 2015, the C Director of the C Tax Office shall not transfer to A, until April 30, 2015, the transfer office which reverts to A until April 30, 2015.

A notified that "payment of KRW 973,363,830 shall be made, but A shall pay the said capital gains tax."

In addition, the court below did not err.

As of the date of closing argument of this case, capital gains tax in arrears A is KRW 1,212,81,220.

C. A acquires the ownership of the real estate listed in the list on April 15, 2013 (attached Form 1) and thereafter acquires it.

11. On November 13, 2014, the Seoul Western District Court's Yongsan Registry on the ground that the Defendant was donated on November 13, 2014

The registration of ownership transfer was completed in accordance with No. 36897.

In addition, A acquires the ownership of the real estate listed in the list (attached Form 2) on March 18, 201.

On November 18, 2014, each real estate listed in the list of the gift (attached Form 1 and 2) dated November 13, 2014 to the Defendant on November 13, 2014.

in total, "each of the real estate in this case", and 'the total of the gift contracts with respect to each of the above real estate' shall be

Receipt of all-round indictments of the Jeonju District Court on the ground of a contract for donation of each real estate

No. 16679 completed the registration of ownership transfer.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. Main Safety Defenses

Part 1-A. Three copies of the check in which the sum of face value 210,000,000 won is 20,000 won among each check mentioned in paragraph 1-a.

With respect to 17551147, 17551151, 17551168), the Plaintiff’s check tracking investigation on February 11, 2016

In the event that the Plaintiff received the entire details of the financial inquiry on the three copies of the said check, the Plaintiff is ultimately obligated to pay the said money.

It became known that A was attributed to the Defendant and that A was subject to excess of its obligation.

Therefore, 210 million won of the gift contract on the amount of 727 billion won, the plaintiff asserts that it is a fraudulent act

only 1 years have elapsed since the day on which the court became aware of the fraudulent act as above

Since a lawsuit for cancellation of act was filed, it is unlawful.

In addition, with respect to the gift contract of each real estate of this case, the plaintiff taxation information linkage system

A, upon completion of the ownership transfer registration under each of the above real property, shall be held by A immediately.

(D) A regional tax office affiliated with the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the entire real estate was disposed of to the Defendant.

around September 8, 2015, which was designated as a person subject to investigation of tracking of delinquency A, each of the above gift contracts was made fraudulent act.

Along with the requirements of litigation, it was confirmed that the delinquent taxpayer's property was satisfied, and on November 16, 2015, the delinquent taxpayer's property was tracking.

11. A's fact through a comprehensive inquiry into financial property of A and the National Tax Service's computer network around 17.

property of this case, the sole property of which is the property of this case, is donated to the defendant, and in excess of A's liability

As long as the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that he induced or deepened the attitude, the Plaintiff’s respective real estate of this case.

at least September 8, 2015 or on September 11, 2015, when the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the defendant has been made.

16.In light of the fact that the grounds for cancellation of each of the above gift contracts were known, one year has elapsed thereafter.

The lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act in this case is unlawful.

B. Determination

"1) The date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for the revocation, which is the starting point of the exclusion period in the exercise of the obligee's right of revocation," and "the date when the obligee became aware of the requirement for the obligee's right of revocation

Since it means the date on which the debtor becomes aware that the act was committed, it is merely the date on which the debtor becomes aware of it.

(1) If it is not sufficient to say that such a juristic act has been conducted, it is not sufficient to say that the juristic act has been conducted by the creditor.

(b) in other words, there is a deficiency or lack in the joint security of claims by such person; and

It has become impossible to fully satisfy the claims because the joint security in attitude is more deficient than one story.

Furthermore, it is required to know the fact that the debtor had the intention to harm (Supreme Court).

Supreme Court Decision 2003Da40286 Delivered on December 12, 2003 (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da40286, Dec. 12, 2003).

in the exercise of the creditor's right of revocation, in relation to the starting point of the exclusion period, the State shall

Whether he/she was aware of the duties concerning the collection, preservation, etc. of taxation claims, except in extenuating circumstances.

It shall be determined on the basis of the tax official's awareness, and the disposal of the delinquent taxpayer's property

No judgment shall be made on the basis of the awareness of other public officials in charge of registration and enrollment affairs.

Therefore, not only the tax officials’ disposal of property in arrears but also concrete.

Recognizing the existence of fraudulent act and that there was an intention to injure a delinquent taxpayer, this is also a State.

A. At that time, the reason for revocation is known (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da2015 Decided June 15, 2017).

247707)

2) According to the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 6, 9, 10, 11 (including paper numbers), the plaintiff 1

(2) The fact that the National Court Administration received the family relation register A and the defendant from the National Court Administration on July 31, 2014