beta
Text
1. The sales contract concluded on May 16, 2013 between the defendant and the non-party B on each real estate listed in the separate sheet was 85.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 6, 2013, the director of the tax office of the Plaintiff-affiliated Kimhae Tax Office may acquire real estate from B on May 6, 2013, 2002
8. 22. On May 31, 2013, the due date for the payment of the transfer income tax was determined and notified to KRW 332,463,98 on the facts underreporting the transfer income tax. On September 5, 2013, B decided and notified the due date for the payment of KRW 835,063 on September 30, 2013 on which B did not voluntarily pay the value-added tax of KRW 332,463.
B. B did not pay the above two national taxes, and as of December 2013, B’s amount of national taxes in arrears is KRW 367,235,370, including the additional dues (hereinafter “instant tax claim”).
C. On May 16, 2013, B entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant, who is one’s own wife, with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 20, 2013 as the receipt of the Changwon District Court Kim Sea Registry No. 5248.
The appraisal value of B’s active property at the time of the instant sales contract was 203,345,560 won in total, including each of the instant real property and each of the instant real property in an amount equivalent to KRW 166,087,00, and the current base value of KRW 8,739,360 in Kimhae-si, the market price of which is equivalent to KRW 28,519,200 in total, and E non-Dong-dong buildings equivalent to KRW 28,519,200 in total. On the other hand, the small property was 413,103,640,000 in total, and KRW 80,640,00 in total, and KRW 98 in total, and KRW 203,5,560 in total among the instant tax claims.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5 (if there is an additional number, including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserts that he had concluded the instant sales contract, which is a fraudulent act, with the defendant, with the status of excess of debt B, within the limit of KRW 85,360,000 against the defendant.