There is no clear ground that the defendant's property is clan property.

It is reasonable to transfer property to the defendant after the default of national taxes, and to regard the real property received by the defendant as a fraudulent act because there is no ground that it is a clan property.

Article 45 (Procedures for Seizing Real Estate)

Suwon District Court 2014Kadan3026 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

00AA

March 6, 2015

April 1, 2015

1. The contract of donation concluded on March 11, 2013 between the defendant and the non-party 0B regarding the real estate stated in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. The Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on March 12, 2013 by the receipt No. 10302, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to Nonparty 0B.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

(a) WhiteB on November 20, 2012, KKdo YYA YB, on its own on November 20, 2012, MM 125-1 forest land

35,504 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the taxable real estate of this case") were transferred (sale to third parties on October 19, 2012).

B. The 0B filed a return on November 29, 2012 on the transfer of the instant taxable real estate, but did not pay the capital gains tax. Accordingly, the head of the OO tax office decided and notified 0B of the capital gains tax of KRW 112,395,070 on March 31, 2013 with the due date set on March 31, 2013. However, 0B did not pay the said capital gains tax (the amount of delinquent tax including additional dues and aggravated additional dues as of August 31, 2014, the amount of delinquent tax of KRW 22,254,210, including the amount of delinquent tax as of August 31, 2014) until the date of the instant pleadings.

C. Meanwhile, on March 11, 2013, 00, 00B is listed in the separate sheet with the Defendant, who is a species-friendly (UBC).

The real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”). At the time of March 11, 2013, after concluding a donation contract with respect to the instant real estate, the real estate price was KRW 231,801,257,000,000) and on March 12, 2013, the registration for transfer of ownership was completed for the Defendant’s future donation. 0B had no specific property other than the instant real estate at that time [60,000,000 won of the transfer price of the instant taxable real estate was deposited into the 0B’s deposit account, and then donated the instant real estate in cash ( KRW 9,00,000,000 on December 31, 2012) or continuously withdrawn the said real estate in cash, and deposit balance is 273,537,000 won and 537,000 won at the time of March 11, 2013];

D. On March 7, 2014, the Plaintiff intended to review the current state of property for the adjustment of delinquent national taxes against 0B.

After printing out the property status list, the copy of the register was perused, it was confirmed that the real estate of this case was registered in the name of the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Judgment on the ground of the plaintiff's claim

“A juristic act which may be protected by obligee’s right of revocation is, in principle, arisen prior to the commission of a fraudulent act. However, it is highly probable at the time of such fraudulent act to the effect that a claim has already been established in the near future based on such legal relations. In fact, where a claim has been realized in the near future, such claim may also become a preserved claim for obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da53704, Feb. 25, 2000). “A juristic act detrimental to obligee’s right of revocation” refers to a juristic act which causes a shortage of claims due to a decrease in the obligor’s property due to the obligor’s disposal of property, or lack of common security in the near future, making it impossible to fully satisfy obligee’s claims. Such fraudulent act means that a debtor’s act of donation cannot be established even if it goes beyond the obligor’s obligation due to an act of disposal prior to the disposal of property, such as a summary of obligation and monetary donation, and it is deemed that the obligor’s 20th intent to jointly pay the obligor’s obligation can be presumed.

According to Articles 105(1) and 106(1) of the Income Tax Act, the transfer income tax on land transfer is determined as income tax to be paid by preliminary return. Therefore, the 0B’s obligation to pay transfer income tax on the transfer of taxable real estate in this case was established on November 30, 2012 (the last day of November 201, 2012, the month in which the ownership of the pertinent taxable real estate was transferred), and there was a legal relationship that forms the basis for establishing a claim. The 0B’s obligation to pay transfer income tax on the transfer of taxable real estate in this case was established on November 30, 2012 (the last day of November 29, 2012, which is the month in which the ownership of the instant taxable real estate was transferred), and as long as the 0BB did not make a preliminary return on November 29, 2012 and did not pay it, it was highly probable that the instant taxation claim in this case was revoked by the Plaintiff’s cancellation of the instant taxation claim in this case.

In addition, according to the above facts, since the 0BB caused debt excess conditions to the gift of this case, the gift of this case is a fraudulent act against the creditor unless there are special circumstances, and in this case, the intention of 0BB's death is presumed.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff may seek the implementation of the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration in this case by exercising the right of revocation against the Defendant and cancelling the donation in this case.

B. The defendant's assertion and judgment

(1) The argument

The real estate of this case is the real estate that the defendant has trusted in the name of the defendant to the head of the Simsan clan, which is the head of the clan. The clan of this case, while preserving and registering the real estate of this case, registered the title trust under the joint signature of members of the clan, such as 0CC and 0B. Since then, the title trustee becomes the defendant by preserving the clan property before 0B's own consciousness becomes the inheritance registration for 0B when 0B was dead and 0B cannot be known at any time beyond 90 years old. This was a critical role in denying the title trust relationship of the real estate of this case after the heir of 0CC registered the inheritance of this case and claiming that it was owned by an individual.

The original copy of the registration certificate concerning the real estate of this case has been kept by the clan of this case, and taxes have been paid by the clan of this case, and other trustees have recognized the real estate of this case as owned by the clan of this case, and the clan of this case has managed the real estate of this case. In addition, the clan of this case registered the title trust under the joint signature of the members of the clan of this case, such as K YY-gun SY-gun, D41-2, 1,339 square meters, in addition to the real estate of this case, the title trust registration was made in addition to the real estate of this case, the title trust registration was made in the name of the members of the clan of this case, KYY-gun, JYS-gun, JJS, 5,765 square meters, and the clan of this case has been set up eight graves of the clan of this case and the location of the cemetery of this case. In addition, the clan of this case has been managed by the defendant of this case by paying the property tax or paying the initial expenses.

0B only as a title trustee and as a new name of the land of this case by returning the clan property.

Since the transfer of ownership was registered to the defendant who is a trustee, the donation contract of this case is not a fraudulent act.

(2) Determination

It is not sufficient to recognize that the clan of this case was lost by only the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 17 (including the number of branch numbers where the branch numbers exist) and that the actual owner of the real estate of this case was the clan of this case, and that the clan of this case was again nominal trust with the Defendant of 0B equity after the title trust of the real estate of this case to 0BB, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the above facts of recognition, the following can be seen.

In other words, the case where the inheritor of 0CC completed the inheritance registration of the real estate in this case

In light of the fact that October 12, 2006, when reporting the gift tax of this case, the donee was made in the name of the defendant who is not the clan of this case, the plaintiff notified 0B of the transfer income tax on March 11, 2013, which is the date of conclusion of the gift contract of this case, the date of signing the gift contract of this case, the ownership transfer registration was made on the following day after the gift contract of this case, and the conclusion of the gift contract of this case after selling the taxable real estate of this case, it is reasonable to see that the gift contract of this case

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the gift contract of this case must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the execution of the gift contract of this case shall be made.

As a result, the Plaintiff is obligated to restore the ownership transfer registration of this case, and the Defendant, a beneficiary, is obliged to implement the procedure.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per the disposition.

(c)