Revocation of Fraudulent Act

In excess of debt, the non-partyO transferred the real estate of this case to the defendant who is a punishment between the non-partyO and the defendant is presumed to be fraudulent act and the beneficiary's bad faith.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The sales contract concluded on June 7, 2004 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate between the defendant and the non-party ○○○ District Court ○○○○○ registry office on June 17, 2004 is revoked. The defendant will implement the procedure for registration cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on June 17, 2004 with respect to each real estate.

1. Basic facts

A. Whether there exists a tax claim against the Plaintiff’s ○○

(1) The ○○ Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd., the husband of ○○○○○○, the representative director of which is the ○○○○○○○○○, was notified on January 31, 2005 by the head of ○○○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control of KRW 920,250 of the value-added tax amount for the second term of 201, but the said notification was made on January 31, 2005. However, in addition to the delinquency in payment, the Plaintiff did not pay the total amount of KRW 78,712

(2) When the non-party company did not pay the above corporate tax and value-added tax, on April 1, 2005, the head of ○○ Tax Office notified the second taxpayer to designate ○○ as the oligopolistic shareholder (39.62%) of the above company as the secondary taxpayer as of the date when the liability for payment of the above corporate tax and value-added tax was established, and to pay 33,807,390 won (including additional dues) including the above corporate tax, but ○○ did not pay it.

(3) On the other hand, the head of ○○ Tax Office, the Plaintiff’s head of ○○ Tax Office, upon recognizing the amount of the processed tax invoices received between 2001 and 2003, imposed 64,091,070 won in total, as shown in the attached Table, on the ○○○○, by including the amount of the processed tax invoices received from 2001 to 2003, and by imposing and notifying ○○, as stated in the attached

B. Disposition of property and property status of ○○○

(1) On June 7, 2004, ○○ concluded a sales contract on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). As to each of the instant real estate, ○○ District Court’s ○○○ Registry on June 17, 2004 completed the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant’s name with respect to each of the instant real estate.

(2) At the time of entering into the instant sales contract, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○ ○○○○ KRW 10,787,520), and ○○○○○○ ○○○○○○ ○○○○ ○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 9, Gap evidence 4-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

Value-added tax, global income tax, and corporate tax are established when the pertinent taxable period ends. According to the above facts, the plaintiff had a tax claim equivalent to the calculated tax amount stated in the attached Table on the details of delinquent taxes on the date when each tax liability in the attached Table on the details of delinquent taxes terminates with respect to ○○○ upon the end of each taxable period. Thus, the tax claim against ○○○ was already established at the time of the instant sales contract, and even if the payment deadline has been determined after the determination of the amount of tax, it is highly probable that the creditor's right of revocation becomes a preserved claim for its establishment and determination.

B. Whether the fraudulent act was established

The facts that ○○ had already been in excess of the obligation at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract are as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that ○○’s act of selling each of the instant real estate to the Defendant without having been in excess of the obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, a creditor, barring any special circumstances, and the Defendant’s bad faith, a beneficiary, is presumed.

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. The defendant's assertion

In regard to this, the defendant paid 12,450,980 won in arrears of ○○○○○, and purchased each of the instant real estate. The defendant asserted that ○○ was a bona fide beneficiary since he did not know at all about whether ○○ was in a state of debt excess at the time of the instant sales contract, and the circumstances leading up to harming other creditors under the instant sales contract.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) Under the corporate register of the non-party company, the defendant was registered respectively as a director from October 26, 200 to October 25, 2003, and from December 15, 2003 to February 15, 2001, and as the representative director from October 26, 200 to February 15, 200, but the defendant did not participate in the actual operation of the company due to the attendance at the above company or the attendance at the board of directors after February 15, 201.

(2) On June 5, 2003, the Defendant purchased 108.2 square meters of single-story houses of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, 519 square meters and ri-○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○○○, and ○○○○, ○○○○, and ○○○, ○○○○, and ○○○○○, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name on July 3, 2003.

(3) In order to enhance the utility value of the instant housing, the Defendant experienced the need to additionally purchase each of the instant real estate adjacent to the surrounding area, and entered into a sales contract with ○○ on June 7, 2004 with respect to each of the instant real estate at KRW 4,00,000, the Defendant paid the down payment of KRW 400,000 on the date of the contract, and paid the remainder of KRW 3,60,000 on June 16, 2004.

(4) On the other hand, the non-party company did not pay 12,450,980 won ( = value-added tax 11,949,130 + additional 501,850 won) in aggregate of value-added tax for the second period of 2003. On May 23, 2004, the head of the ○○ Tax Office designated the ○○○ as the secondary taxpayer, and on June 9, 2004, seized 1,32 square meters in each of the instant real estate and ○○○○-gun, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, and 56 square meters in each of the instant real estate and ○○○-gun, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, and 56 square meters in each of the instant military

(5) On June 16, 2004, the Defendant sent a notice of cancellation of attachment between ○○ and ○○ to the effect that the Defendant would pay the above delinquent value-added tax in lieu of the payment of the remaining value-added tax on each of the instant real property, and on the same day, the Defendant sent a notice of cancellation of attachment from the head of ○○ Tax Office to the effect that the above attachment was cancelled on two parcels other than the instant real property, and each of the above registrations was cancelled on the following day.

(6) On June 17, 2004, ○○ completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the instant real property under the name of the Defendant on the grounds of the said sale, and on October 1, 2004, ○○○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○○, ○○-gun, ○○○○○, ○○-gun, ○○○○, ○○-do, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the said name on the grounds of sale as of September 15, 2004, which was concluded with Nonparty ○○.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 5, 6, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 2 and 3, Eul evidence 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

In light of the above facts, in order to enhance the utility value of each of the instant real estate, the Defendant did not make a registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant with respect to the instant land ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 12,450,980, in order to additionally secure each of the instant real estate adjacent to the surrounding real estate in order to pay it in lieu of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the Defendant did not know the fact that the Defendant did not know that there was a specific obligation of Nonparty ○○○○○○○○○○○○.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.