beta
Text
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part against Defendant A among the instant lawsuit was concluded on November 10, 2016 as the withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit.
2. The plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. C received a donation of KRW 4 billion in cash around May 17, 2012 from F, a legal husband, and KRW 3 billion in cash around December 21, 2012.
B. On February 31, 2015, the Nam Daegu Tax Office, under the Plaintiff’s control, decided to pay KRW 175,824,00 and KRW 1,709,952,00, and KRW 1,260,000 among the above amount until now, C paid only the amount equivalent to KRW 1,260,00,000 among the above amount. As of May 31, 2016, the delinquent amount of C’s gift tax, etc. as of May 31, 2016 is equivalent to KRW 728,851,980 [the delinquent amount of C’s gift tax = KRW 627,341,70 [the principal tax + KRW 174,637,160];
(hereinafter “instant gift tax”). C.
C Around September 30, 2014, Defendant B donated 10,000 common shares of D’s issuance (evaluation value of KRW 320,000,000) and 5,000 common shares of E’s issuance (evaluation value of KRW 70,000,000, hereinafter “instant shares”) to Defendant B, and around that time, Defendant B completed the transfer of ownership for the instant shares (hereinafter “instant donation agreement”).
[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 7, 8
2. On October 26, 2016, the Plaintiff excluded the part of the claim made against Defendant A by submitting an application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim on October 26, 2016. In light of the amended cause of the claim, it is reasonable to deem that the lawsuit against Defendant A is withdrawn. Accordingly, on November 10, 2016, the part of the claim against Defendant A was terminated by withdrawal of the lawsuit in accordance with Article 266(6) of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B
A. Although the existence of the preserved claim may be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation, in principle, it is required that the claim was incurred prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act, there is a legal relationship that has already been based on the establishment of the claim at the time of such fraudulent act