Whether a fraudulent act has been committed on real property and stocks to a person who has made the ownership transfer registration;

If a person delinquent in the payment of value-added tax has made a provisional registration of ownership transfer and ownership transfer right claim on the ground of sale of only real estate and stocks to the defendants, who are the children of the partnership or partnership, on the ground of a sale of stocks, it can be

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

Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

A. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached to the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant’s book-○○○ and ○○○○○○ (○○○○○○-○○○○○○○○○) cancelled the trade reservation entered into on January 19, 2006, and Defendant’s book-○○○○○○, which completed on February 14, 2006 the procedure for the cancellation of the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer, which was completed on February 14, 2006, with the head of the instant court

B. As to the real estate indicated in No. 2 of the same list 2, the sales contract was revoked on February 3, 2006 between Defendant Dok○○ and ○○○○○○, and Defendant Dok○○○, upon which the above court’s procedure was completed on February 6, 2006, to register cancellation of the ownership transfer registration.

C. On the non-listed stocks listed in the same list No. 3, the sales contract concluded on March 1, 2006 between Defendant Dok○ and Dok○○○○○, and the Defendant Dok○, Inc., notified that the above sales contract was revoked; and

D. As to the real estate indicated in No. 4 of the same list, the sales contract concluded on December 7, 2005 between Defendant Park ○ and ○○○○ on December 7, 2005 was revoked, and Defendant Park ○○○○○ District Court’s ○○ registry office on December 8, 2005, followed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on December 8, 2005.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

The court's explanation on this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Yandong Support2006Gahap675 ( November 02, 2007)]

1. As to each real estate listed in Schedule 1:

A. On January 19, 2006, the pre-sale agreement between Defendant ○○ and ○○○○ on January 19, 2006 was revoked. B. Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was completed

2.(a) With respect to real estate listed in Appendix 1 List 2:

(1) The sales contract concluded on February 3, 2006 between Defendant ○○ and ○○○○○○ was revoked; and

(2) Defendant ○○○ performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on February 6, 2006 by the above court No. 3223, to the head of ○○○.

B. As to the emergency stocks listed in No. 3 of Schedule 1:

(1) The sales contract concluded on March 1, 2006 between Defendant ○○ and ○○○○○○ was revoked; and

(2) Defendant ○○○ has notified that the sales contract mentioned in paragraph (1) above has been revoked to the corporation, ○○ Construction Holdings and Preambles.

3. As to the real estate listed in No. 4 of Schedule 1:

A. Revocation of the sales contract concluded on December 7, 2005 between Defendant Park ○ and ○○○○○, which was concluded on December 7, 2005;

B. Defendant Park Jong-○, who completed the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration with ○○ District Court ○○○○○○ registry office on December 8, 2005, pursuant to the receipt No. 18785 on December 8, 2005.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

(a) A taxation claim;

On January 2, 2006, the head of ○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office notified the head of ○○○○ who operated the ○○○-dong 52-1 located in ○○-dong 52-1 of global income tax amounting to KRW 24,246,740 from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003 of global income tax amounting to KRW 24,246,740 from January 31, 2006, as shown in the attached Table 2, of the total income tax and value-added tax for the year to which he/she belongs, as shown in the attached Table 2.

(b) Conclusion of trade reservations, etc.;

(1) On January 19, 2006, the head of ○○○ entered into a pre-sale agreement with Defendant Seo-○ and each real estate listed on No. 1 List No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “real estate listed on No. 1”) and completed the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership on February 14, 2006 to Defendant Seo-○○○○○○○○ by filing a provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership with Defendant Seo-○○○ under Article 3854.

(2) On February 3, 2006, the head of ○○○ entered into a sales contract on the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 List 2 (hereinafter referred to as “real estate listed in the attached Table 2”) with Defendant ○○○○○ and the head of ○○○○ entered into a sales contract on February 6, 2006, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with Defendant ○○○○○ on February 6, 2006 under the above court’s receipt 323. On March 1, 2006, the head of ○○ entered into a sales contract on March 1, 2006 on the non-listed stocks listed in the attached Table 1 List 3 (hereinafter referred to as “instant stocks”). On the same day, Defendant ○○ entered

(3) On December 7, 2005, the head of ○○○ entered into a sales contract with Defendant Gamb○ and attached No. 4 on the real estate (hereinafter referred to as “real estate indicated in attached Table 4”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer with Defendant Gamb○○ on December 8, 2005 under 18785 on the receipt of ○○ District Court’s ○○○○ registry office.

(4) On July 27, 2004, the head of ○○○○○, among each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2004, ○○○○○, 41-6, 136 square meters and buildings on the ground thereof, 42-7, 138 square meters prior to the same 42-7, 42-12, prior to the same 42-12, 460,000 won, and 40,000,000 won as a creditor ○○ Livestock Cooperative, and ○○○, a creditor of ○○○○, was granted a loan equivalent to the above amount, and ○○○, on January 13, 2006, 2006, ○○○○○, a 206,739,000 won claim against each of the above real estate, and completed the provisional attachment registration on January 16, 2006, 2008.

Facts without any dispute arising in recognition, Gap evidence 1, 4, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7-1 through 9, 11, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. Establishment of fraudulent act

According to the above facts of recognition, the tax claims of KRW 184,837,690 against the Plaintiff head of ○○ is preserved right to exercise the obligee’s right of revocation. Each of the above contracts entered into between ○○○ and the Defendants with respect to each of the above real estate and shares, the sole property of which is the Plaintiff’s property in excess of the obligation, shall be deemed a fraudulent act conducted in order to avoid the disposition on default upon the knowledge that it would prejudice the Plaintiff’s tax claims. The Defendants

B. Determination of the defendants' assertion

(1) First, the Defendants concluded each of the above contracts with a justifiable transaction based on the long-term financial standing of ○○○○. Thus, each of the above contracts is not fraudulent or its bona fide beneficiary. However, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, if the debtor's act of disposal of property causes a decrease of the debtor's whole property and the shortage of joint security of claims due to the debtor's act of disposal of property, it constitutes a fraudulent act. In addition, the Defendants' act of disposal is not only a document No. 1, No. 2, No. 2, No. 3, No. 3, and No. 4-1 or No. 3 of the evidence No. 1-2, but it is difficult to recognize the Defendants' good faith.

(2) Next, the Defendants asserted that the revocation part of a fraudulent act by the Plaintiff’s claim in excess of the necessary limit is unreasonable, and that the scope of revocation of a fraudulent act may seek revocation even beyond the claim amount of the revocation creditor if there are special circumstances, such as where it is apparent that other creditors demand a distribution or the object is indivisible (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da5822, Jun. 29, 2006). The amount of the claim amount, which is the Plaintiff’s preserved right, is KRW 184,837,690, and the value of the property indicated in the [Attachment 1] list reaches it (the total amount calculated in consideration of the officially announced value at the time of calculating the lawsuit by the Plaintiff is KRW 67,021,101). However, as seen earlier, in light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the entire contract amount is reasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since each of the above sales reservations or sales contracts between the Defendants and the head of ○○○ is a fraudulent act, all of them are revoked, and the restoration of the original state to the head of ○○○○, Defendant Seo-○ is obligated to register the above right to claim ownership transfer with respect to the real estate stated in the first, Defendant Seo-○ is obligated to perform the above right to claim ownership transfer registration with respect to the dongsan as stated in the second, and the above right to claim ownership transfer registration with respect to the real estate stated in the fourth, and the fact that the instant shares were not issued as of the closing date of the argument in this case is not disputed between the parties, and thus, Defendant Seo-○ is obligated to notify the parties that the sales contract for the instant shares was revoked. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants of the Plaintiff is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent