It is difficult to view that the husband donated the above money to the defendant solely on the fact that the defendant and her husband purchased real estate jointly.

If the creditor seeking revocation of a fraudulent act denies the beneficiary's assertion that the monetary payment act against the beneficiary is a gift, the burden of proving that the monetary payment act constitutes a gift is on the part of the creditor claiming a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2011 Gohap8176 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

IsaA

March 8, 2012

March 22, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The contract on donation between the defendant and B shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day after the day when the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. BB sold 00 m2,000 OO-dong 000 m2,000 m2 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) to KimCC for KRW 000,000, and received the down payment of KRW 00 on July 28, 2009 from KimCC, KRW 29,000 on July 29, 29, and KRW 000 on August 21, 200 from KimCC, and the intermediate payment of KRW 000 on August 21, 200 from his national bank account.

B. BB transferred KRW 00 on August 5, 2009 and KRW 000 on August 25, 2009 from the above national bank account to the Defendant’s bank account (hereinafter “Defendant’s bank account”) (hereinafter “each remittance of this case”).

C. On August 11, 2010, the head of Ansan Tax Office notified the Plaintiff to pay the capital gains tax of 000 won (= principal tax of 000 won + additional 000 won; hereinafter “instant tax”).

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of Gap 1 to 3, and 5, and the result of response to an order to submit financial transaction information to Korean banks by this court, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Referral and Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

B In a state where the basic legal relationship of the transfer income tax to be imposed on the transfer of the instant real estate has been formed, BB intentionally intended to be exempted from the collection of the instant tax, and intentionally donated KRW 000 out of the purchase price of the instant real estate to the Defendant, the wife, on July 29, 2009 and August 25, 2009. At the time of the said donation, BB was insolvent, and the Defendant was also aware of such circumstances. Accordingly, the said donation constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, a tax claim, and thus, ought to be revoked in accordance with Article 406 of the Civil Act and Article 30 of

B. Determination

However, if the beneficiary denies the payment of B-B money to the above 00 won by the defendant's transfer of 00 won to the above 00-B account, it is difficult to view that the above 00-B money was transferred to the defendant's transfer of 00 won to the above 00-B account, and that the above 00-B money was transferred to the defendant's transfer of 00 won to the above 00-B account, and that the above 0-B money was transferred to the defendant's transfer of 00 won to the above 00-B account. Thus, it is difficult to view that the above 00-B money was transferred to the defendant's transfer of 00 won to the above 00-B account, and that the above 00-B money was transferred to the defendant's transfer of 00 won to the above 00-B account, and that it was also difficult to view that the above 000-B money was transferred to the defendant's transfer of 000 won.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.