Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Whether the service of taxation is essential in determining whether a fraudulent act is preserved claims, or not, is established as a matter of course when the requirements for taxation under the law are satisfied under the principle of no taxation without law. In addition, there is no need for the tax authorities to conduct the disposition of taxation or the reporting of taxpayers, and there is no need for the taxpayer to recognize

The contents of the judgment are the same as attachment.

2016 Ghana 145997 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

leap*

on October 23, 2018

on 04 October 06, 201

1. The agreement on division of inherited property concluded on May 27, 2013 with respect to 2/9 shares of the real estate listed in the attached Form * shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 69,00,000.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 69 million won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. Of the litigation costs, 30% is borne by the Plaintiff, and 70% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The Agreement on Division of Inherited Property concluded on May 27, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") with respect to shares 2/9 (hereinafter referred to as "share of this case") among the real estate listed in the separate sheet * is revoked.

1. Facts of premise;

(a) Periodical*The progress of taxation and tax information data on*

(1) The chief of the competent tax office found * the false n% disguised n% of the personal enterprise whose business registration has been completed, and revised 201 portion of value-added tax for the portion omitted report of credit card sales confirmed, and imposed global income tax by reflecting this.

⑵ 관할세무서장은 정**이 대표자인 주식회사 ##상사('㈜ ##'이라고 한다)의 법인세과세표준 조사과정에 매출 등 탈루금액을 발견하였는데 그 귀속이 불분명하여 정**의 소득으로 간주, 인정상여분에 대한 2011년분 종합소득세를 부과하였다.

Referencely, the chief of the competent tax office has followed procedures such as delivering a tax notice to the above * (including the tax collection decisions, the tax investigation and the tax investigation on the details of delivery of mail). The computerized details (including the tax collection decisions, the tax investigation and the tax investigation on the details of delivery of mail) are as follows ("each individual tax claim 1-4").

B. The instant agreement

⑴ 별지 기재 부동산 소유자인 정@@는 2013. 4. 25. 사망하였는데, 상속인으로 는 처인 피고(법정상속분 3/9), 자녀인 정++, 정**, 정++(이상 각 법정상속분 2/9) 가 있었고, 당시 정**에게 다른 적극재산은 없었다.

⑵ 피고와 정** 등 망 정@@의 상속인들은 2013. 5. 27. 정**이 상속받을 수 있었던 이 사건 지분을 포함하여 위 부동산 전부를 피고의 소유로 하는 이 사건 약정을 하였다.

(c) Disposition, etc. of real estate in attached Form;

⑴ 별지 기재 부동산에는 2003. 11. 28. 채권최고액 93,000,000원, 채무자 정@@인 근저당권설정등기가 되어 있었고, 피고는 2013. 5. 28. 위 부동산에 대하여 이 사건 약정 대신 형식상 2013. 4. 25. 협의분할을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다.

B. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on March 15 of the same year with respect to the above real estate to the largest column on May 13, 2016. However, the transaction value on the registry is KRW 430,000,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap 1-12 evidence (including more than one number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Whether there is a preserved claim

(1) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the taxation disposition, which is the premise of the 1-5 claim, is invalid due to the improper delivery of a tax payment notice, omission of the name indication of the taxpayer, and defects in the identity theft, is not recognized (the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has no legal interest, and thus, the invalidity of the taxation disposition cannot be asserted against the Defendant. However, there is a legal interest in dispute as to

B. Doll tax is naturally established when the taxation requirements stipulated by the law are satisfied under the principle of no taxation without the law. The taxation authority’s disposition, reporting of taxpayers, etc. are not necessary, and the taxpayer need not be aware of the fact that the requirements for taxation are satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Nu279, Jan. 22, 1985; 2008Da8458, May 14, 2009).

Secondly, as seen in the premise facts, the claims Nos. 1 through 5 are all claims calculated by meeting the taxation requirements due to the omission of a sales declaration, omission of corporate tax sales, etc., and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the identity theft, and there is no other evidence. Therefore, the validity of taxation disposition due to the defect in the taxation disposition, such as delivery of documents only for the request for performance, omission of indication of taxpayers, etc., is irrelevant to the establishment of the taxation claim itself. Thus,

The head of the office shall not have reasons.

B. Whether fraudulent act and revocation are recognized

(i) the burden of proof of bad faith in a revocation suit and the issues of this case

㈎ 사해행위취소소송에서 채무자의 악의는 채권자에게, 수익자의 선의는 수익자에게 각 입증책임이 있고(대법원 1997. 5. 23. 선고 95다51908 판결 참조). 채무자가 상속재산 분할협의를 통해 자신의 유일한 재산인 상속분을 다른 상속인에게 이전함으로써 무자력이 되었다면 특별한 사정이 없는 한 사해행위가 된다(대법원 2001. 4. 24.선고 2000다41875 판결 취지 참조).

㈏ 전제사실에 따르면, 다른 적극재산이 없던 정**이 이 사건 약정을 함으로써 이 사건 지분을 잃고 무자력이 된 것으로 보이므로, 우선 정**에게 악의가 있었는지는 위 약정 당시 정**이 제1~5채권을 존재를 인식하고 있었는지 여부에 달려 있다. 그런데 납부고지 자체가 공시송달로 이루어진 제3~5채권의 경우에는 정**에게 그와 같은 인식이 있었다고 보기 어려우므로, 우편으로 송달이 완료된 것으로 되어 있는 제1, 2채권의 경우에만 채권의 존재에 대한 정**의 인식이 문제된다.

Dor. Whether the existence of the claim 1 and 2 is **

㈎ 납부고지 당시 국세징수법령이나 국세징수법 시행규칙1)상 납세고지서는 법정서식에 따르도록 되어 있고 그 부본을 과세관청이 따로 보관하도록 하는 규정이 없었던 이상, 납세고지서가 송달된 경우, 필요적 기재사항의 하자는 이를 주장하는 자가 입증하여야 한다(대법원 1986. 10. 28. 85누555 판결, 대법원 2003. 3. 28. 선고 2001두1005 판결의 각 취지 참조).

㈏ 제1, 2채권에 대하여 피고는 납부고지서상 납세의무자가 하%%로 기재되었을 뿐만 아니라 정**에게 납부고지서가 송달된 적이 없다고 다툰다. 앞서 본 납부고지서의 필요적 기재사항에 관한 법리는 개인에 대한 납세고지서가 납세의무자 주소지로 송달된 경우 납세의무자 표시상의 하자의 경우에도 마찬가지로 적용된다고 할 것이다.

㈐ 그런데 위와 같은 법리를 전제사실과 갑 5, 6호증, 갑 7호증의 1, 2, 갑 9호증, 갑 11호증의 1, 2, 갑 12호증의 각 기재와 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정에 적용하면, 제1, 2채권에 관한 납세고지서는 납세의무자인 정**에게 송달되었고 정**은 이로써 이 사건 약정 이전에 자신에게 그와 같은 조세채무가 있었음을 인식하고 있었던 것으로 보는 것이 옳다.

1) Article 9(1) of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 10682, Dec. 31, 2011); to collect national taxes, the head of a tax office or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall issue a written notice stating the taxable year, tax items, amount of taxes, grounds for calculation thereof, deadline for payment, and place for payment. Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the National Tax Collection Act: Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the National Tax Collection Act shall be in accordance with attached Form 10. The tax payment notice under Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the National Tax Collection Act shall be in accordance with attached Form 10.

The tax notice of the first and second claims against the n% of the n% has been sent by registered mail to the address*** (the document regarding the agreement of this case* the same as the address*) and the details have not been returned.2) Furthermore, the details of the delivery of mail have been delivered to the third party.

According to the detailed review, even if the taxpayer's name "n%" exists, it is merely a computerized record for the convenience of dealing with mail, and n% is not independent of ***, and there is no evidence to deem that there was no indication about * in the tax payment notice according to the legal form**.

【Specific Fraudulent Act subject to Revocation

㈎ 사해행위와 그 사해행위의 이행으로 마쳐진 등기의 등기원인인 법률행위가 일치하지 않는 경우 취소의 대상이 되는 사해행위는 실제 법률행위가 있었던 날을 기준으로 판정하여야 하고(대법원 2002. 11. 8. 선고 2002다41589 판결, 2010. 2. 25. 선고 2007다28819, 28826 판결의 각 취지 참조), 다만 사해행위취소 주문 자체는 특별한 사정이 없으면, 형식적 외관을 제거한다는 의미로 등기원인상의 법률행위를 취소하거나 실질적인 법률행위를 취소하는 것 어느 것도 가능할 것이다.

㈏ 전제사실과 변론 전체의 취지를 종합할 때, 이 사건 약정 외에 등기원인인 2013. 4. 25. 협의분할약정이 있었다고 볼 근거가 없고, 오히려 이 사건 약정의 이행과정에서 단지 망 정@@의 사망일로 소급기재한 것에 불과한 것으로 보이므로, 앞서 본 법리에 비추어 사해행위취소의 대상이 되는 것은 여전히 이 사건 약정으로 보는 것이 반송내역이 없다는 것 자체만으로도 특별한 사정이 없는 한 수취인에게 송달된 것으로 추정된다(대법원 2007. 12. 27. 선고 2007다51758 판결 참조) 옳다.

㈐ 결국 정**은 이 사건 약정 당시 적어도 제1, 2채권의 존재를 인식한 상태에서 위 약정을 한 것으로 보이는 이상 사해의사, 즉 악의가 있었던 것으로 판단되고, 수익자인 피고의 악의 추정을 번복할 만한 반증이 없으므로, 이 사건 지분에 관한 위 약정은 사해행위로서 취소되어야 한다.

㈑ 피고는 정**이 법정상속분을 포기하는 이 사건 약정을 하였더라도 구체적 상속분을 침해하는 것이 아니므로 사해행위로 볼 수 없다는 취지로 주장하나, 구체적 상속분이 법정상속분과 다르다는 사정은 수익자 측에서 주장ㆍ입증하여야 할 것인데 (대법원 2001. 2. 9. 선고 2000다51797 판결 취지 참조), 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없으므로, 이 부분 피고의 주장은 이유 없다.

(c) Scope of revocation of fraudulent act and methods of reinstatement;

(1) In the event that a real estate on which the right of revocation was established is transferred to a fraudulent act and the registration of creation of a collateral is cancelled by subsequent repayment of a fraudulent act, the fraudulent act may be cancelled and the compensation for damages may be claimed within the extent of the balance remaining after deducting the secured debt amount from the value of the real estate. The value of the real estate shall be calculated based on the date of closing argument at the trial court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da66416, Sept. 4, 2001). Meanwhile, when the creditor exercises his right of revocation, the right of revocation may not be exercised in excess of his/her own claim in principle. The amount of the creditor’s claim includes interest or delay damages accrued from the fraudulent act until the time of closing argument at the trial court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da6416, Sept. 4, 2001; 200Da64547, Dec. 11, 2001).

B. In light of the above legal principles and the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the right to collateral security and the legal principles as to the right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15488, May 1, 2008) x (see, 2000, May 13, 2016; 200,000) x 2/9).

Article 69,00,00 won as the preserved claim amount of the obligee’s right of revocation exercised by the Plaintiff is within the scope of 293,038,960 won in total and within the limit of 1,200 won in the premise facts, and does not considerably exceed the total amount of the claim amount of 293,038,960 won in total, and within the limit of revocation as seen earlier. Accordingly, the agreement of this case must be revoked within the limit of 69,00,000 won in the manner of restitution, and the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.