logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2014. 12. 12. 선고 2014가단75510 판결
체납자가 국세의 징수를 피하기 위하여 재산권을 목적으로 한 법률행위를 한 경우는 사해행위임[국승]
Title

In case where a delinquent taxpayer does a legal act for the purpose of property right to avoid any collection of national taxes, it shall be a fraudulent act.

Summary

(Judgment without Oral Proceedings) If, at the time of executing a disposition on default, a taxpayer does a legal act for the purpose of property right to avoid the collection of national taxes, the tax official may request the court to cancel the fraudulent act and restore the original state.

Related statutes

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration of Fraudulent Act

Cases

2014 Ghana75510 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Defendant

Yellow AA

Conclusion of Pleadings

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

Imposition of Judgment

December 12, 2014

Text

1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. Revocation of a sales contract concluded on April 10, 2014 between the Defendant and BB Co., Ltd.;

나. 피고는 BBB 주식회사에게 광주지방법원 광주지방법원 순천지원 광양등기소 20◎◎. ◎. ◎. 접수 제◎◎◎◎◎호로 마친 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를 이행하라.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Reasons

1. Indication of claim;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

Cheongwon of the Gu

1. Relationship between the defendant and the non-party BB

Defendant

The YellowAA is the representative of the non-party BB, a delinquent taxpayer, of the non-party BB (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party B") (the certified copy of the corporate register of subparagraph A).

2. Formation of preserved claims for taxation rights;

The Head of the Changwon Tax Office under the Plaintiff's name did not pay the corporate tax for the business year 2013 of the corporation (ju)BB (O-O-O-OOOOO) in the name of the Defendant but did not pay the corporate tax for the business year, and the head of the Changwon Tax Office notified OO as the payment deadline on October 31, 2014, and OOOOO as the payment deadline on June 30, 2014, but the total amount of delinquent taxes, including additional dues, did not pay up to the date.

No.

Items of Taxation

Reversion

Deadline for payment

Amount in arrears (including additional charges)

(2014.08 present)

Date of establishment of tax liability;

Jinay

(1)

Corporate Tax

2013

2014.05.31

OOO

December 31, 2013

(2)

Corporate Tax

2013

2014.06.30

OOO

December 31, 2013

guidance.

OOO

3. Reduction and excess of liability assets;

A. On October 2014, when the non-party was anticipated to notify the non-party of the high-amount corporate tax without paying the report of the corporate tax for the business year 2013 on March 28, 2014, the non-party reduced the liability property by completing the registration of transfer of ownership with No. 11718 to the defendant, the representative of the non-party, who is the non-party, on May 09, 2014, the attached list 1, 2, and 3 real estate (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") in his re-written list, which is his re-written for national tax appropriation due to the sales contract on October 2014.

B. The director of the Changwon Tax Office under the Plaintiff conducted an investigation of the property of the non-party for the purpose of the disposition on default, as shown in the Data Status Table (Evidence A) on the Property of Delinquents, etc. of the non-party, the transfer of the real estate of this case led to further deepening the status of excess of obligations and preventing the satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim as equivalent to the amount

(a) Active property: OOO; and

On October 2014, 2014, at the time of the transfer contract of this case, there was no other property than the instant real estate as active property of the Nonparty.

2) Small property: OOO

On October 2014, 2014, at the time of the transfer contract of the instant real estate, there was an OO of the amount of national tax in arrears with the non-party's small property at the time of the transfer contract of this case.

4. Fraudulent intent and fraudulent act;

A. The non-party anticipated that a large amount of corporate tax will be notified, and the non-party's transfer registration of ownership of the real estate of this case, which is one of his properties available for national tax appropriation, was known at the time of transfer to the defendant under the presumption of the disposition for arrears. Accordingly, the plaintiff could not obtain the satisfaction of the tax claim.

B. Under the circumstances where national tax liability should be borne, the Nonparty’s act is a fraudulent act to evade the Plaintiff’s compulsory execution, which is a tax claim due to the disposition of national tax in arrears.

5. Bad faith of the defendant

The Nonparty: (a) known that there was no other property available for national taxes except the instant real estate; (b) the Defendant, as the representative of the Nonparty, transferred ownership on the ground of sale; and (c) the Defendant, at the time of acquiring the instant real estate by transfer, should be deemed to have known the fact that this sale was a fraudulent act; and (d) the Nonparty’s intent of deception.

6. The date on which he becomes aware of a fraudulent act;

The Plaintiff was issued a certified copy of the registry of the instant real estate on October 8, 2014 to execute the disposition on default against the Nonparty on the fact that the instant real estate had been registered in the name of the Defendant, and was aware of only the fraudulent act in the instant case by obtaining a certified copy of the register of the corporation on October 1, 2014 to verify the relationship between the Defendant and the Nonparty.

7. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the non-party’s act of having the real estate in this case registered to the defendant for the transfer of ownership on the grounds of sale and purchase constitutes a fraudulent act in order to evade tax liability. Thus, in order to escape tax liability, it constitutes a fraudulent act by knowing that the plaintiff, who is a tax payer, was harmed. Thus, the plaintiff had the right to file this lawsuit, such as the purport of the claim, in accordance with

arrow