Seoul Central District Court 201 Gohap108205 ( November 20, 2012)

The defendant acquired the real estate of this case as the share of property division for the external limit of the delinquent taxpayer.

(1) The Defendant had completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate between the Plaintiff (State) and the delinquent taxpayer for the division of the property or the preservation of the property, etc., prior to the establishment of the tax claim against the delinquent taxpayer. It does not constitute a fraudulent act or constitutes a bona fide beneficiary.

2012Na104184 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

The United States of America

Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Gahap108205 Decided November 20, 2012

March 21, 2013

May 2, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant and the non-party BB shall be subject to the contract of donation concluded on March 31, 2009. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment. The contract of donation concluded on November 5, 2010 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2 between the defendant and the non-party B shall be revoked. The defendant shall be subject to the non-party B, and the transfer of ownership completed on November 5, 2010 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 shall be subject to the registration of transfer of ownership completed on November 5, 2010 by the Seoul Central District Court, Gangnam-gu District Court, Seoul District Court No. 67690, and with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2, the procedure for each horse registration of transfer of ownership completed on the attached

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why the court should explain this case, and the monetary donation contract in this case in this case in the last 6th judgment of the court of first instance is not a fraudulent act, or 'the monetary donation contract in this case in this case in the last 2th judgment of the court of first instance is not a fraudulent act, 'the 8th and second 17th 'the 8th 'the 8th 'the 8th 'the 8th 'the 8th '' does not constitute a fraudulent act, 'the 'the 1st ' does not constitute a fraudulent act,' and the 'the 1st 's '

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The debtor’s excess of the debt of the BB

At the time of each of the instant donations contract, HB owned active assets with 000 won equivalent to the market price of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OOO000 and 000 won of the market price at the time of the instant donation contract (each of the real estate listed in the list 1 and 2 is part of the real estate) and owned active assets with 000 won, but the total amount of active assets was half of the total amount of 00 won (the time of the instant donation) and national taxes, mortgage obligations, and deposit repayment obligations. However, even though the non-party company issued other assets of HB at the time of the instant donation, the non-party company did not purchase value-added taxes for unfair refund, and the non-party company's non-party company's purchase of the non-indicted 1 and 19 (the real estate listed in the list 1 and 2 were included in the non-party 2) and did not receive the amount of the non-party 2's actual accounts as if the non-party 2 reported the export amount, and did not receive the sales amount.

2) The defendant's bad faith

In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant ought to be deemed to have known that each of the instant donations was a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, a creditor.

O) The defendant transferred 57,00 shares of the above company to RedD on April 14, 2004 to October 22, 2004, and 200 from January 20, 2006 to February 6, 2006 to the representative director of the CCC Integrated Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "CCC Comprehensive Logistics"), and received 000 won benefits from the above company from April 26, 2004 to October 30, 2004. In addition, on October 22, 2004, the defendant was working as the representative director, transferred 57,00 shares of the above company to the above RedD on February 3, 2006, transferred 20 shares of the above company, 200 shares, 200 shares, and 300 shares, and actively transferred them from Kim FF, 208, and 300 shares, such as shares, from Kim F. 28, 2008.

O) In addition to each of the instant real estate donated to the Defendant, the Defendant owns a large number of real estate, such as the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OOO apartment 00 00 dong 000, and the OOO Ri 000 dong 000 other land in Gwangju City, and holds financial assets in excess of the total amount of 00 won in several financial companies. In light of the fact that the Defendant owns considerable property under the name of the Defendant, the Defendant may be presumed to have been directly and indirectly involved in the FF of the Nonparty Company at the time, or intended to evade liability due to the instant fraudulent act.

O The Defendant’s global income in 2010 was KRW 000, but the tax investigation for processing sales, etc. was conducted by Nonparty Company, the global income in 201, which was considerably increased to KRW 000,000, and this constitutes a fraudulent act as a result of converting the property owned by Nonparty Company to the form of financial assets in the name of the Defendant for the purpose of evading obligations. Furthermore, the Defendant had shown the same attitude as the Defendant, such as filing a simple notification suit by asserting the appearance of the shipB, but the actual system was not divorced.

B. Determination

O. The defendant should be considered as a bona fide beneficiary who was unable to know that the plaintiff is the creditor at the time of entering into each of the instant gift contracts, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit to determine the rest of the difference as to whether the amount exceeds the obligation of shipB.

1) First of all, as seen earlier, the instant monetary donation contract was made two years prior to a special tax investigation, and the Defendant paid gift tax to the Defendant, and purchased apartment with the donated money, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was unaware of the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the instant monetary donation contract.

2) The following, as recognized earlier, the non-party company continued to receive unfair refund of value-added tax from 2005, but it is difficult to view that the company could have predicted the special tax audit to be conducted after about four months from the transferB or the defendant, in light of the fact that the non-party company was operated normally until the time of the instant real estate donation contract, and the defendant continued to file a complaint against the transferB as a crime of adultery as a result of the fact that the appearance of the transferB has become difficult to maintain the marital relationship, and the status of the real estate that the defendant donated to the defendant was taken into account, taking into account the following factors: the defendant appears to have made the instant real estate donation contract between the transferB and the non-party under the pretext of de facto division of property and consolation money, etc. before the plaintiff's claim against the transferB was established, and the defendant is considered to be a bona fide beneficiary.

3) Furthermore, according to Gap evidence Nos. 9 and 10, and evidence Nos. 11-4, as the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant served as the representative director of the CCC for a certain period of time around 2004 and around 2006, and it can be recognized that the above company participated in the stock transaction around 2004, and around 2006 and around 2008, the above period is about 1-6 years prior to each donation contract of this case, and the above fact that the defendant actively participated in the FFF even at the time of each donation contract of this case, and even if the defendant participated in some of the FFF, it is difficult to view that the above special tax investigation was conducted for the above company until 10 years, and that the whole amount of the Gap evidence No. 2010, including the above evidence No. 2010, can not be seen as 100,000,000 won.

4) In light of these circumstances, the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, such as that the Defendant was partly involved in the FF of the previous CCC Comprehensive Logistics, and that there was other assets in the name of the Defendant, and that the Defendant had a significant increase in the Defendant’s income in 2011, are insufficient to reverse the judgment that the Defendant is a bona fide beneficiary (On the other hand, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the legal marital relationship between the Defendant and the shipB was not completely resolved, but the shipB, on March 15, 2012, prepared a letter that the Defendant would waive the right to care for the children and give five million won to the Defendant for monthly living on the condition that the withdrawal of the complaint was filed against the Defendant.)

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.