It is deemed that only a document of partial receipt of the transfer proceeds would have received all the circumstances, not constitute a fraudulent act.

Where the agent has received part of the transfer price of real estate, but it seems that it was received in full due to circumstances, the beneficiary cannot prove that it is bad faith without constituting fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

2014 Ghana 10576 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

○ ○

September 17, 2014

October 2, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

“The sales contract concluded on October 0, 00 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) between the Defendant and △△△△△△ (KOIC), shall be revoked. The Defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on October 0, 000 with respect to the instant real estate by ○○ District Court ○○○○○ registry office on the instant real estate, and the reasons therefor.”

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

"△△△은 0000. 0. 00. ×× ××군 ××면 ×리 000 외 0필지를 ▲▲▲에게 매도하였다. △△△은 당시 위 부동산을 000,000,000원에 매도하였다면서 양도소득세를 신고, 납부하였으나, 원고의 2011. 5. 13.부터 2011 5. 25.까지의 조사(이하이 사건 세무조사'라 한다)결과 실제 위 부동산 매매대금은 000,000,000원으로 밝혀졌다. 이에 따라 원고는 △△△에게 0000. 0. 00.을 납부기한으로 양도소득세 000,000,000원을 고지하였고, 원고의 △△△에 대한 위 양도소득세 채권은 0000. 0. 0. 현재 다음과 같다.",(생략)

However, △△△△△, with prior knowledge of the fact that a high-amount capital gains tax is to be collected, sold the instant real estate owned by the Defendant in the form of KRW 00,000,000 for the purpose of evading it, and title trust was made in the form of completing the registration of ownership transfer on October 0, 000, immediately after the completion of the instant tax investigation.

The Plaintiff’s above transfer income tax claim against △△△△△ was established prior to the above sale, which is a fraudulent act, and thus, the Defendant’s right to revoke the fraudulent act is subject to the right to revoke the fraudulent act. In excess of the debt, the △△△△ constitutes a fraudulent act committed with the intention of undermining the general creditor, and the Defendant, in collusion with △△△△△, knew of the intention of fraudulent act and deception of △△△△△△△△△△, which was concluded on April 6, 201 between the Defendant and △△△△△△, should be revoked as a fraudulent act in accordance with Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act, which was committed by △△△△△△ in order to evade the collection of national taxes, and the Defendant is obligated to delete the registration of transfer of ownership in the purport of the claim concerning the instant real estate.

B. Defendant’s assertion

Around October 0, 000, the Defendant had already purchased the instant real estate from △△△△△△ prior to the instant tax investigation. Around October 0, 2000, the Defendant had completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 0, 000, not completing the registration of ownership transfer to dispose of the said real estate. At the time, the sales contract dated 0,000 cannot be submitted as a document for registration, and was drafted again as of October 0, 00.

Around October 0, 000, △△△△△△ sold the real estate of this case to the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax claim is merely an abstract bond and cannot be included in the △△△△△’s small property. As such, △△△△ was not in excess of the obligation, and was not in excess of the obligation due to the sale of the instant real estate, and △△△△△△△ was not aware that the transfer income tax would be corrected and notified within a short period of time at the time of the sale, or that there was a decrease in the liability assets against the general creditors or

Even if the instant real estate sale constitutes a fraudulent act, the Defendant did not have a relationship with the △△△△△, and the Defendant purchased the instant real estate from the △△△△ and paid the sales price in a normal manner due to the lack of knowledge of the obligation and obligation of △△△△△△△, and did not know about the instant real estate sale, and did not know about the intention of △△△△

2. Determination

According to Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4-3, the defendant submitted a real estate sales contract prepared on October 0, 00 with △△△△ at the time of the tax investigation of this case, and even after completion of the registration of ownership transfer with regard to the real estate of this case, it is recognized as reasons for the sale date.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements No. 1, No. 2-1, No. 2-2, No. 3-1, and No. 2 of No. 3, the defendant shall choose to close the place of residence and the company at the place of residence, on which △△△△△△ on behalf of the △△△△△ on October 0,

Accordingly, the Defendant purchased the instant real estate from △△△△△△△ in its purchase price of KRW 00,00,000, and the down payment of KRW 00,000,000 on the date of the contract, the remainder 00,000,000 shall be paid on October 0, 000: Provided, That the purchase price shall be reported as KRW 00,000,000, and the documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer shall be delivered to the Defendant at the time necessary. On October 0, 000, the head of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ was paid KRW 00,00 with the purchase price of the instant real estate on behalf of the Defendant. The Defendant, on October 0, 00, issued a receipt to the Defendant that received KRW 00,000,000 from 0,000 from 0,000,0000 real estate.

따라서 △△△이 0000. 0. 0. 피고에게 이 사건 부동산을 매도하는 형식으로 명의신탁하였음을 전제로 하는 원고의 주장은 이유 없다(설령, △△△이 0000. 0. 0.경 피고에게 이 사건 부동산을 매도한 것이 사해행위에 해당한다고 하더라도, 피고는 실제로 △△△의 대리인에게 매매대금을 지급한 것으로 보이는 점, △△△이 ▲▲▲에게 부동산을 매도하였다는 날로부터 이 사건 부동산 매매일까지는 약 5년이 경과하였고, 이 사건 세무조사도 이 사건 부동산 매매일 이후에야 이루어진 점, 피고가 △△△과 친인척 관계에 있었거나, △△△의 부동산 거래 및 채권채무관계를 잘 알 수 있는 관계에 있었다고 볼 만한 자료는 없는 점 등을 종합하면, 피고는 그 사해행위에 대하여 선의였다고 봄이 상당하다).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.