The burden of proving that the taxation claims cannot be satisfied;

It is insufficient to recognize that the transfer of the claim in this case is not able to fully satisfy the plaintiff's tax claims due to the deficiency in the joint security of claims due to the decrease in the liability assets of the non-party company or the lack of joint security already in the shortage.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 406 of the Civil Act

2014 Gohap 16087 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AA, uB

July 24, 2014

September 4, 2014

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part regarding the claim for the cancellation of the monetary loan agreement concluded on December 18, 2013 between the Defendant SeoB and the Defendant In-A shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant In-A and the remaining claims against defendant In-B are dismissed, respectively.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On March 22, 2013, the agreement on the transfer and takeover of bonds concluded on March 22, 2013 with respect to the claims stated in Annex 1 in the separate sheet between Defendant A and Defendant B and Defendant A on December 18, 2013 is revoked. Defendant CB notified that the contract on the transfer and takeover of claims described in Annex 1 in the separate sheet No. 2013 has been revoked. Defendant CB notified Defendant CB to the effect that the contract on the transfer and takeover of claims described in Annex 1 in the separate sheet No. 1 in the separate sheet No. 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant 1 is the largest shareholder of Korea-based ○○○○○ Company (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Company”) and the former director and representative director of the Nonparty Company, and Defendant 2 is currently in the current position of auditor, and Defendant 2 was in the position of representative director of the Nonparty Company from April 10, 2009 to March 20, 2013.

B. On May 2, 2013, the head of the Ulsan District Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control issued a notice of payment to the ○○○○○○ on the grounds that the non-party company did not pay the returned amount of corporate tax for the year 2012, the corporate tax for the year 2009, the corporate tax for the reason that the returned amount of tax was not paid after the filing of the return on the interest income tax for the year 2010, ○○○ on the grounds that the returned amount of tax was not paid after the filing of the return on the interest income tax for the year 2011, ○○○ on the grounds that the returned amount of tax was not paid after the filing of the return on the interest income tax for the year 2012, ○○○ on the grounds that the returned amount of tax was not paid after the filing of the return on the interest income tax for the year 2012, and on July 1, 2013, the Nonparty Company notified each of the payment deadline by July 31, 201.

C. On August 7, 2012, Nonparty Co., Ltd. sold to ○○○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○○○○, a company owned by Nonparty Company, a building on a site of 34,400 square meters and its ground factory (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

D. On March 22, 2013, Nonparty Company: (a) on March 22, 2013, Nonparty Company: (b) was a △△ Company.

Claim(hereinafter referred to as “claim(s) for KRW 00 out of the purchase price of the instant real estate in relation to the fraternity.

"The claim of this case" was transferred.

E. On February 20, 2013, Defendant A borrowed ○○○○○○○ from Defendant BB, and confirmed the fact of concluding a monetary loan agreement with Defendant CB on December 18, 2013, Defendant A agreed to collect the instant claim and preferentially repay the said claim to Defendant CB, and drafted a notarial deed with the aforementioned content.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The non-party company transferred the claim of this case to the defendant in the situation where it could expect that the national tax will be notified in the near future because each corporate tax for the year 2009, the year 2012, the interest income tax for the year 2011, and each of the interest income tax for the year 2012 is established, and the national tax will be notified in the near future. The defendant in the defendant in the defendant in the court did not obtain the satisfaction of the claims by re-transfering the claim of this case to the defendant in the defendant in the defendant in the defendant in order to avoid the plaintiff's compulsory execution. In addition, the above assignment of claims of this case constitutes a fraudulent act to avoid the plaintiff's execution. The defendant in the defendant in the court knew that the transfer and re-transfer of the claim of this case to the largest shareholder of the non-party company was fraudulent, and the defendant in the court below knew the intention of the defendant in the previous representative director of the non-party company, and the above assignment of claims shall be cancelled in accordance with Article 406 of the Civil Act and Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act.

3. Whether the part concerning the claim for revocation of the contract for a loan for consumption as of December 18, 2013 between Defendant SeoB and Defendant DA among the instant lawsuit is lawful

The Plaintiff considers Defendant SB as the subsequent purchaser of the instant claim, and satisfied the Plaintiff’s taxation claim.

However, it seems to have sought revocation of a fraudulent act subject to creditor's right of revocation. However, the debtor's fraudulent act subject to creditor's right of revocation is a juristic act between the beneficiary and the beneficiary, and any juristic act conducted by the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is not subject to creditor's right of revocation. Therefore, the part seeking revocation of a juristic act between the defendant A and the subsequent purchaser, the beneficiary, is unlawful as

4. Determination on the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant SeoB

As above, the monetary claim on December 18, 2013 between the defendant SeoB and the defendant Lee In-A, among the lawsuits in this case

As long as the part of the claim for the cancellation of a non-loan contract is illegal, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of a non-loan contract is not established, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of a non-loan contract is without merit.

5. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A

A. For a debtor’s act of disposing of his property to constitute a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor, the debtor’s act should not be able to fully satisfy his claims on the ground that there is a decrease in the debtor’s responsible property due to such act that there is a shortage in the joint security of claims or that the joint security already in the state of shortage is more deficient

B. On March 22, 2013, as to whether the assignment of the claim in this case constitutes a fraudulent act, it is insufficient to recognize that the statement in the evidence No. 5 alone, with respect to whether the transfer of the claim in this case against Defendant A on March 22, 2013, made it impossible to fully satisfy the Plaintiff’s tax claim due to the decrease in the company’s liability assets due to the decrease in the transfer of the claim in this case, or the lack of joint security already in a shortage. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise (the Plaintiff alleged that the instant real estate was the only property of the non-party company, and the claim acquired as a result of the sale of the instant real estate was the only property of the non-party company, and thus, it seems that the disposal of the instant claim in this case constitutes a fraudulent act. However, according to the evidence No. 5, the non-party company appears to have owned the real estate in this case other than the instant real estate as well as the real estate in this case and the real estate claim in this case.

C. Therefore, it is unnecessary to further determine the different requirements for the occurrence of obligee's right of revocation.

The plaintiff's assertion seeking the cancellation of the assignment of the claim of this case against the defendant of the non-party company cannot be deemed a fraudulent act. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion seeking the cancellation of the assignment of the claim of this case

6. Conclusion

In the instant lawsuit, a monetary loan agreement between Defendant SeoB and Defendant A on December 18, 2013 between the instant lawsuit and Defendant A;

Since the part of the claim for cancellation is unlawful, it is dismissed, and all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendant A and the remaining claims against the defendant DB are groundless, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.