Whether it constitutes fraudulent act at the time of donation prior to the establishment of secondary tax liability

Although the secondary liability for tax payment was not established at the time of the donation contract, the taxable period had already commenced, the corporation failed to pay national taxes, and the donor was a major shareholder of the corporation, so there was a legal relationship in the establishment of the tax claim, and there was a high probability that the corporation was in arrears in the near future and there was a high probability that the tax claim would have occurred, and the tax claim would have been realized,

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 30 (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act)

1. The contract of donation concluded on May 10, 2007 with respect to each real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the separate sheet between the defendant and Lee Ho-ho shall be revoked, respectively.

2. The defendant's Lee Ho-ho,

A. The registration of transfer of ownership completed under No. 40718 of the receipt on May 11, 2007 with respect to each real property listed in paragraph 1 of the Schedule in the Schedule;

B. As to the real estate listed in paragraph 2 of the attached list, each procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 48981, Jun. 12, 2007, which was completed by the Daegu District Court Branch Branch Branch.

3. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1.Basics

(a) A taxation claim;

(1) Under the agreement with ○○ Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.”) during the period from January 2001 to February 2003, the director of the tax office affiliated with the Plaintiff received a false purchase tax invoice for the amount of sales of non-data of the said company, and conducted a tax investigation from October 29, 2007 to November 13, 2008 with regard to the omission of value-added tax and corporate tax by submitting the value-added tax return, and then, the said tax investigation was conducted on January 2, 2008 as of January 31, 2008 with the payment deadline for the ○○ Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. as of January 2008, 202, value-added tax amounting to KRW 23,423,439, 200, 203, and 201, 2039, 2001, 2002.

(2) However, as ○○ drugs fail to pay corporate tax and value-added tax that were corrected and imposed as above, and the property of the above company is insufficient to cover the delinquent amount, the director of the tax office in Daegu notified ○○, an oligopolistic shareholder of the ○ drug, to designate this title as a secondary taxpayer on February 21, 2008 and to pay corporate tax and value-added tax (hereinafter “instant tax claim”) as listed below, and the notification reached ○○ on February 27, 2008, but ○○ failed to pay the above taxes.

Omission of the Table

(b) Disposal, etc. of property under this title;

(1) This subparagraph entered into a donation contract with the Defendant, who is an ASEAN, on May 10, 2007, with respect to each of the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as of May 11, 2007 by the Daegu District Court Branch Branch of the District Court No. 40718, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as of June 11, 2007 with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "each of the real estate of this case") (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case"), and completed the registration of ownership transfer as of June 12, 2007 under the title No. 48981, Jun. 11, 2007.

(2) At the time of each of the instant gift agreements, 21,00 shares of the ○ drug with no substantial value (this title, the representative director of the ○ drug, transferred 50% out of 42,00 shares of the ○ drug held by himself/herself to the company employees around March 5, 2007, since it was difficult to manage the company, but the said employees discontinued the ○ drug around September 2007 due to business depression.) were the reasons for each of the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 10, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Referral and Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

The plaintiff is against the defendant to seek the cancellation of the case donation contract by making the fraudulent person as the claim for the tax of this case as the claim for preservation, and it is believed that the defendant can not be considered as the claim for compensation because the Korea Tax & Gift does not have the Korea Tax & Gift No. 100 at the time of the contract.

In principle, a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation should have arisen before an obligor performs a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. However, at the time of the legal act, there is a high probability that there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis of harming the obligee, and that the claim would have been created by such legal relationship in the near future. In the near future, where a claim is created due to the realization of such probability in the near future, the claim may also become the obligee’s right of recourse (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da35465, Sept. 28, 2006; 2006Da64672, Jan. 25, 20

In order to establish the secondary tax liability, there should be a fact that ○○○○○○ Tax and Value-Added Tax have to meet the requirements for the primary tax obligor’s delinquency, etc. Therefore, its establishment period is after the lapse of “the primary tax payment period” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Nu80, Aug. 24, 1982; 2005Du8498, Dec. 22, 2006). According to the above facts acknowledged, the payment period for corporate tax and value-added tax was January 31, 2008, and the secondary tax liability for the corporate tax and value-added tax under this title was not yet established due to the lapse of the payment period for the primary tax liability, but it was probable that ○○○○○○○○○ Tax and Value-Added Tax had already been established for the taxation claim of this case, which became the basis for the taxation claim of this case’s oligopolistic shareholder’s 200% aggravation of corporate tax and value-added tax claim of this case’s.

B. Whether the fraudulent act was established

In accordance with the above facts, the act of donation made by the debtor to the defendant, who is the real estate in the case of ○ heading real estate, shall constitute a fraudulent act without special circumstances, and the debtor's name was known at the time of this situation, and it is presumed that the debtor's name was aware that he would restore the plaintiff as the beneficiary, even as the defendant who is the beneficiary.

C. As to the defendant's bona fide assertion

At the time of each gift contract of this case, the Defendant asserted to the effect that this subparagraph was a bona fide beneficiary, and thus, the Defendant was a bona fide beneficiary. However, the Defendant alleged to the effect that it was a bona fide beneficiary, but this subparagraph was investigated by the Seoul Regional Tax Office on February 28, 2007, prior to the conclusion of each gift contract of this case, and recognized the fact that ○○ drug received false purchase tax invoice from ○○ Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and declared value-added tax by receiving ○○ Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and around March 2007, the Defendant’s assertion alone was insufficient to reverse the presumption of bad faith as to fraudulent act, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s good faith.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the contract of donation concluded on May 10, 2007 and the contract of donation concluded on June 11, 2007 with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the separate sheet between the defendant and Lee Ho-ho shall be revoked as a fraudulent act. With regard to the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the separate sheet, the defendant, who is the beneficiary, is obligated to implement each procedure of registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on May 11, 2007 with respect to each real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the separate sheet to Lee Ho-ho who is the debtor, as stated in paragraph (1) of the separate sheet, and as to each real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the separate sheet.

Results

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