The amount of preserved claim of creditor's right of revocation includes interest or delay interest accrued from the fraudulent act to the date of closing argument in fact-finding proceedings.

The amount of the obligee's right of revocation includes the interest or delay damages incurred by the date of the closure of arguments in the fact-finding court after the fraudulent act, and the additional dues under the National Tax Collection Act are the kind of incidental tax imposed in the meaning of the interest on the unpaid portion in the event national tax is not paid by the due date, and as long as the tax claim is recognized as the preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation, the additional dues from the transferred income tax of this case are also the preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation after the fraudulent

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2011 Doz. 11203 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

GaA 2 others

November 6, 2012

November 27, 012

1. A. The Defendants and Nonparty B’s each contract of cash donation concluded between the Defendants and Nonparty B as shown in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

B. The Plaintiff, and Defendant DaA, and Defendant DaCC, are 000 won, and Defendant DaD are 000 won, and each of them is 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final to the day of complete payment.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendants' relation

High AA is the husband of Nonparty B, and highCC, and highD are children between the higher AA and the said ParkB.

(b) Hunting the taxation rights;

"1) On August 22, 2001, 200, 25.431 m2, Seo-gu, Incheon, OB purchased 3,636 m2 (hereinafter "the land in this case was divided into 000 m2) out of 000 m3,000 m2, and on November 13, 2002, sold the above land to GD and completed the transfer registration of ownership on February 18, 2003, and on February 18, 2003, the director of the tax office affiliated with the Plaintiff (hereinafter "2") determined the capital gains tax on the transfer of the land in this case (hereinafter "the capital gains tax in this case") as 00 m30,000 m2, and the payment period was made as 00 m2,000 m2,000 m20,000 m2,000 m2,000.

C. Money transaction between ParkB and the Defendants

From December 17, 2007 to March 5, 2010, ParkB paid to the Defendants a total of KRW 000 won to the Defendants, and KRW 000,000, and KRW 000,000 to Defendant HighCC (hereinafter collectively referred to as "each remittance of this case", and each of the above amounts is referred to as "each remittance of this case"), and specific contents are as follows.

(Specific Contents Omitted)

1) On December 17, 2007, the remittance of KRW 000 to Defendant DaD was made.

2) On December 20, 2007, Defendant HighA transferred KRW 000 and KRW 000 to Defendant HighCC, respectively.

3) On December 27, 2007, Defendant High-A transferred KRW 000 again to Defendant High-A.

4) On March 5, 2010, Defendant High-A transferred KRW 000 and KRW 000 to Defendant High-CC respectively.

(d) Current status of the property of ParkB;

1) The real estate details among active property are as listed below:

(The following table omitted):

2) Of active property, there was a deposit of KRW 000 in total amount of KRW 000 and KRW 000 in the national bank account (00) of ParkB on December 17, 2007, immediately before the remittance of Defendant DaD to the National Bank account (00), but around that time, it continued to deposit money from time to time in the deposit account held by ParkB, including each remittance of this case, and continued to withdraw money from time to time on December 27, 2007. On the other hand, on March 5, 2010, the said national bank account was opened with KRW 00,000 in addition to the above KRW 0 and deposited 00 in the foreign bank, but immediately withdrawn KRW 00 on the same day and became 326 won in this balance.

3) The base date of December 17, 2007 was 000 won (including additional dues) for the transfer income tax of this case as of December 17, 2007, and the total amount of the debt of 000 won is 00 won.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-satched facts, evidence 1, 2, 4 through 6, and evidence 4 through 14 (including each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) the existence of the credit;

According to the above facts, since it can be recognized that the Plaintiff had already established the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax claim prior to each remittance of this case, which the Plaintiff asserts as a fraudulent act, the above claim is subject to the obligee’s right of revocation. Meanwhile, the amount of the obligee’s right of revocation includes the interest or delay damages incurred by the date of closing argument in the fact-finding court after the fraudulent act, and the additional dues as prescribed in Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act are the kind of incidental tax imposed in the meaning of the interest on the unpaid portion in the event national tax has not been paid by the due date, and the amount of the tax claim includes the additional dues incurred after the fraudulent act to the time of closing argument in the fact-finding court (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007).

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

1) The parties' assertion

The plaintiff, ParkB, while knowing that the transfer income tax of this case is delinquent, asserts that it constitutes a fraudulent act as the plaintiff's intent to donate each of the above amounts to the defendants with the knowledge that it would prejudice the taxation right holder. The defendants argued that the above amounts are all owned by the defendant, while the above defendant used the transfer of the national bank in the name of ParkB (Account Number 00, Account Number 00, and Account Number 00) in the name of the defendant, and the transfer of the money deposited in the above account to the account in the name of his children is not a donation from ParkB because the above deposits are used jointly for daily household affairs, and even if not, the above deposits are used for the purpose of daily household affairs, it can be deemed that 1/2 is owned by GoB, and it is not constituted a fraudulent act because ParkB was not in excess of its debts.

2) Whether the instant deposit constitutes responsibilities of ParkBB

In accordance with the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, when a deposit contract is entered into through the explanation and confirmation procedure, and, except in exceptional cases where there is a clear agreement between a financial institution and a third party to exclude the right to claim a deposit from the deposit account holder and transfer the right to claim a return of deposit to a third party, the deposit account holder is deemed the party to the deposit contract and the title-holder is recognized as the right to claim a return of deposit to the deposit account holder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da45828, Mar. 19, 2009). The fact that the title-holder of the deposit contract of this case is ParkB is the party to the deposit contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da45828, Mar. 19, 2009). On the contrary, unless there exists an agreement between a citizen and a third party to claim a return of deposit to the National Bank, and there is no ground to recognize that ParkB is the party to use the above money.

Therefore, the deposit claim of this case is the property of ParkBB's responsibility.

3) The legal nature of each remittance of this case

The above facts and the evidence revealed that the deposit of this case falls under ParkB's responsible property, and that the defendants Eul is in the family relationship with the husband or children of ParkB, and that ParkB who already defaulted with the transfer income tax of this case transfers the amount of money to the defendants by dividing it into the defendants for a short period of time, and that the defendants argued that the defendants' trust was terminated and returned to ParkB after the trust in the name of deposit account transfer. However, in light of the personal relations between the defendants and ParkB, the above assertion's credibility of trust was significantly lowered and even within a short period of time, the trust was terminated at the above point, and there was no ground to accept the transfer of money by dividing it into the accounts of the defendant GoCC and GoD as well as the family members, and each of the remittance of this case constitutes "each remittance of this case" (hereinafter referred to as "each remittance of this case").

4) Whether an insolvent is insolvent, the intention of the deceased, etc.

A) In case where a debtor has engaged in a series of property disposal acts in principle, it shall be judged based on whether each act causes insolvency (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da69026, Apr. 27, 2001). However, when there are special circumstances to regard a series of such acts as one act, it shall be determined collectively whether the other party to the disposition is uniform, and when determining whether there are such special circumstances, it shall be specific criteria such as the other party to the disposition, whether the other party and the debtor are in close relation with each other, and whether the other party and the debtor are in close relation with each other, and whether the other party's motive or opportunity for each disposition are uniform (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da7795, Jul. 22, 2005).

B) In addition to the facts of health care, recognition, and evidence No. 11 with respect to this case, (i) the Defendants are the husband and children of ParkB, and (ii) each donation from July 2007 to December 27, 2007, among each of the instant donations, has a distance between imprison and heat, and (iii) in particular, on December 17, 2007, in addition to the donation of KRW 000 with respect to Defendant GoD alleged as the instant fraudulent act, it is necessary to determine the total amount of KRW 00,000, and KRW 00,000, and KRW 200,000 from the instant account to Defendant GoB, and at intervals of KRW 20,000 and KRW 20,000,000 from each of the instant donations, and each of the aforementioned donations needs to be considered to be more than 00,000 and more than 207.271,207.271.27.

C) First of all, from December 17, 2007 to December 20, 207, according to the facts of GaB's insolvency, and the facts of recognition, and first, from December 17, 2007, the active property of GaB as of December 17, 2007 is merely 000 won ( =00 won +000 won +0000 won). However, the passive property is 00 won ( =00 won +00 won), and there was a change in the amount of deposits thereafter, and (ii) there was a change in the amount of deposits thereafter, but on December 27, 2007, the balance of deposits was 00 won, and the debts exceeded due to donations during the above period.

D) Next, even on March 5, 2010, the positive property still has the same volume as the small property, but even if it is calculated including the amount temporarily deposited in the reorganization of the said foreign exchange bank, it is merely 00 won (=00 won +000 won +000 won) and still has a status of exceeding the debt.

E) Ultimately, each of the instant donations was made in excess of the obligation of ParkB, and it constitutes a fraudulent act, and it is reasonable to deem that ParkB, a debtor, was aware that the said donations would cause shortage of joint security and harm to the general creditors of the Plaintiff and others. In addition, as long as ParkB’s intent to harm is recognized, the Defendants, a beneficiary, are presumed to have been malicious, and there is no evidence to reverse this.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, each gift of this case between the Defendants and ParkB must be revoked as a fraudulent act. Also, the Defendants are obliged to return to the Plaintiff each of the donations of this case, and the Defendants are obliged to pay to the Plaintiff 00 won and Defendant DaCC 000 won, Defendant DaD 000 won, and damages for delay by 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.