Additional tax bonds can also become preserved bonds of creditor's right of revocation, along with principal bonds.

It is reasonable to deem that immediately before a fraudulent act, the debtor was aware that the debtor transferred real estate, and that the credit of additional tax due to the bad faith in reporting and payment of transfer income tax can be the creditor's right of revocation together with the principal claim, and that he bears the transfer income tax equivalent to the sale of land.

2012. Revocation of fraudulent act

Korea

Park AA

January 24, 2013

February 7, 2013

1. He shall revoke all the donation contract of KRW 000, which was concluded on September 11, 2008 between ParkB and the Defendant, and the contract of KRW 000,000, which was concluded on September 22, 2008.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 8, 2008, ParkB sold at least 00 O20 O2, 431 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) to CCDDD Entertainment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on May 30, 2008, but did not report and pay the transfer income tax by May 31, 2009, the payment deadline for the final return of transfer income tax, even though the ParkB completed the registration of transfer of ownership on May 30, 2008.

B. Accordingly, on June 1, 2010, the director of the tax office under the Plaintiff’s control determined and notified 00 won in total, including 600 won of the transfer income tax corresponding to the year 2008 (hereinafter “the transfer income tax of this case”) and 000 won of the additional tax due to failure to report, and 000 won of the additional tax due to failure to report (hereinafter “the additional tax of this case”).

C. Meanwhile, ParkB transferred KRW 00 on September 11, 2008, and KRW 000 on September 22, 2008, respectively (hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant donations") to the account in the name of the Defendant that is the birth, and the contract based on each of the instant donations was "each of the instant donations".

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute Gap, Gap's each entry of evidence No. 1. 5 of February 3, 1, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

Since each gift contract of this case was a fraudulent act knowing that ParkB would harm the plaintiff who is a tax claim, the defendant is obligated to cancel the contract and return each of the above donations to the plaintiff by restitution.

B. Defendant

At the time of each gift contract of this case, ParkB’s small property is limited to the amount of the transfer income tax of this case, and the amount of the instant penalty tax cannot be included in the small property, and at the time ParkB held active property more than the amount of the transfer income tax of this case, each of the instant gift contracts does not constitute a fraudulent act. Even if it is not so, the Defendant was merely paid to ParkB the money lent to ParkB, and the fact that ParkB took the above tax liability, and thus, is good faith.

3. Determination

A. Scope of the preserved claim

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen before the act was conducted, in principle, prior to the occurrence of a fraudulent act, there is a high probability that the claim has already been established at the time of the fraudulent act, and that it would be established in the near future in the near future, and that its probability has been realized in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim for the obligee’s right of revocation. Therefore, in cases where the obligor transferred the real estate immediately before the fraudulent act, and where the obligor transfers the real estate in the near future, and where the obligor has failed to report the transfer income tax and has failed to pay additional tax, the obligor’s right of revocation may also become a preserved claim for the principal tax together with the principal tax claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007). According to the above facts, ParkB may be deemed to have established the legal relationship that constitutes the basis for the additional tax by transferring the land in this case, which was owned by the Defendant before the donation of this case.

B. Whether a fraudulent act was committed

다툼없는 사실， 갑 제4호증， 을 제1호증의 각 기재， 감정인 정영필의 시가감정 결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면， 이 사건 각 증여 무렵 박BB의 적극재산으로는 000 원 상당의 부동산(동두천시 OO동 00 전 2，036㎡， 같은 동 000 전 384 ㎡)， 예금 0000원(2008. 9. 10. 기준) 또는 000원(2008. 9. 21. 기준)， 000원 상당의 OOO 승합차가 있어 그 합계가 000원(= 000 원 + 00원 + 0000 원) 또는 0000원(= 0000 원 + 000원 + 0000 원)인 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 한편 당시 박BB의 소극재산으로는 원고의 이 사건 피보전채권이 있고 그 가액 은 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 양도소득세 및 가산세의 합계액인 000원이므로， 박BB는 이미 채무초과 상태에 있었고 이 사건 각 증여계약은 위 채무초과 상태를 더욱 심화시키는 사해행위라고 할 것이다.

(c) Presumption of intention and bad faith;

Furthermore, in light of the above facts, ParkB, at the time of each gift contract of this case, knew the fact that each gift of this case was a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditor including the plaintiff, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be presumed to be the beneficiary. In this regard, although the defendant asserted that it was bona fide, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant had lent money to ParkB, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant was aware that ParkB was aware that at the time of conclusion of each gift contract of this case, ParkB had a considerable amount of capital gains tax due to the sale of the land of this case, and that the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since ParkB and the defendant both cancel both the donation contract of KRW 000,000, which was concluded on September 11, 2008, and the donation contract of KRW 000,000, which was concluded on September 22, 2008, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 00 won and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as provided by the Civil Act from the day after the day when the judgment became final and conclusive to the day when the payment is complete, and the plaintiff's claims of this case are accepted for the reasons, and