Whether the act of transferring real estate before and after the tax investigation date constitutes a fraudulent act

The Plaintiff’s taxation claim can only be the preserved claim against the right to cancel the fraudulent act, and it is reasonable to deem that the act of disposal of each real estate of this case constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, a taxation right holder, so the sales contract of each real estate of this case as stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition on each

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act)

1. (a) As to real estate listed in Appendix 1:

(1) On June 10, 2005, the sales contract between Defendant Kim ○ and Jeon ○○ was revoked.

(2) Defendant Kim○-○ shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on June 14, 2005 by the registration office of ○○ District Court ○○○○○ (○○○○) and completed on June 14,

(b) As to the shares of 1/2 of the real estate listed in [Attachment 2] No. 2:

(1) On April 14, 2005, the sales contract between Defendant Jeon-○ and Jeon-○, and Jeon-○, was revoked.

(2) Defendant ○○○ has performed the procedure for the cancellation of registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on May 20, 2005 with ○○ District Court ○○○○ registry office ○○.

C. As to the real estate stated in [Attachment 2] No. 2

(1) The sales contract of April 14, 2005 between Defendant Jeon-○ and Go-○○○ is revoked.

(2) Defendant ○○○ shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on May 20, 2005 by 5065, which was completed by the ○○ District Court ○○○○○ registry office.

(d) As to each one-half of the real estate listed in [Attachment 2] No. 2-C:

(1) On April 14, 2005, the sales contract between Defendant Jeon-○ and Jeon-○, and Jeon-○, was revoked.

(2) Defendant ○○○ shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on May 20, 2005 with ○○ District Court ○○○○ registry office, which was completed on May 20, 2005.

E. As to the stated real property: d. As to the attached list Nos. 2:

(1) The sales contract of April 14, 2005 between Defendant Jeon-○ and Go-○○○ is revoked.

(2) Defendant ○○○ completed on May 20, 2005 by the registry office of ○○ District Court ○○○○○○ (○○○○) and followed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on May 20, 20

F. As to real estate listed in [Attachment 3] No. 3:

(1) The ○○ District Court’s ○○○ registry office, which was completed on May 20, 2005 by the receipt No. 2769, will implement the procedure for registration cancellation of ownership transfer registration.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 6, 2005, the head of ○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff-affiliated tax office issued a notice of expected investigation to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “non-party company”) to the non-party company to conduct a tax investigation on the non-party company from June 7 to June 17 of the same year, and confirmed that the non-party company’s omission of the value-added tax and the root tax was either unjustly deducted from the purchase tax amount of the value-added tax for the second term of 2004 or by reporting the reduction of the Gap’s root tax on the payment of labor expenses, and on July 31, 2005, the non-party company decided and notified the total of 30,394,730 won for the three preceding years for the payment period, and the total of 42,818,580 won for the value-added tax 4 items total of the value-added tax and 73,300 won for the payment period.

B. However, on August 30, 2005, the director of the ○○○ Tax Office notified the former ○○○○ (28.57%) to pay KRW 11,321,450, and 12,624,550 to the former ○○○ (25%) according to the respective equity shares, on August 10, 2005, the non-party company did not pay the above tax evasion, and the closure of the business on August 30, 2005, to pay KRW 11,361,730 (2.5%) to the former ○○ (25%) who is an investor of the non-party company, by September 10, 2005.

C. ① As to the real estate listed in the annexed list Nos. 1, the former ○○ District Court’s ○○○○○○ registry office received on June 14, 2005 due to sale and purchase as of June 10, 2005 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of Defendant Kim○○○. ② As to each real estate listed in the annexed list Nos. 2 and 3, the former ○○, ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○ had completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○, on the ground of sale and purchase as of April 14, 2005, around May 20, 2005, as described in the annexed list No. 5065 through 5066, and Article 2769 of the receipt of the above court’s ○○ registry office.

D. The former ○○ is between the Defendant’s former ○○○ and the former ○○○. The former ○○ is the former ○○○○’s wife, and the former ○○ is the former ○○○’s wife, and the former ○○ is the former ○○’s birth, and the Defendant Kim ○ is the husband of the former ○○○.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 1 to 1 to 6, Gap evidence 4-1 to 3, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Eligibility for the preserved claim and whether it constitutes a fraudulent act;

In light of the following facts and circumstances, ○○, ○○○○, and the Defendants, when comprehensively revealing the above facts and the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the relationship between ○○, ○○○, and ○○○ and the Defendants, as well as the close relation with the operation of the non-party company, the conclusion of a sales contract on each of the instant real estate before and after the Plaintiff’s tax investigation into the non-party company and the Defendants’ future registration of ownership transfer in the future, etc.: (a) evidence such as the circumstance where the Defendants submitted evidence Nos. 1-1 through 6-2 and Nos. 2-1 through 4-2 submitted by the Defendants was insufficient to establish or obtain the source and payment period of the purchase fund; and (b) other circumstances where it is difficult to clarify or obtain it; (c) the content and establishment of the secondary tax liability imposed by the Defendants on the ○○○ and ○○○○○○○ and the Defendants; and (d) circumstances such as the property and income at the time of disposal of each of the instant real estate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.