It is recognized that the act of depositing the money of transfer after transferring property in the children's account in arrears is fraudulent act.

It is difficult to deem that the name of the defendant was stolen in light of the fact that the only transfer price of the property was deposited into the deposit account in the name of the child in default of value-added tax is a fraudulent donation, and that the defendant was living together.

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

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The contract of donation between the defendant and the non-party ○○ on September 29, 2005 with respect to the transfer proceeds listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 31,380,540. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 31,380,540 with 5% interest per annum from the day after the judgment of this case becomes final to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. During the period from September 15, 200 to January 15, 2004, Nonparty ○○○○○○-○○○ operated an entertainment tavern with the trade name of ○○○○○-○○○○○.

B. The director of the tax office under the Plaintiff-affiliated 00 notified Nonparty ○○○ of correction and notification of the amount of value-added tax for the second term portion of value-added tax 7,131,570 on the grounds of underreporting of value-added tax for the year 2003 based on service fee data around August 31, 2005 (7,310,50 won, additional dues were imposed within one month after the lapse of the due date for payment, and 7,995,110 won, additional dues were imposed) for the reason of non-reporting of business income for the year 2003 based on service fee data. On November 31, 2005, the date on which the liability for tax payment was established was determined to impose global income tax for the year 203,203,335,180 won (the additional dues were imposed within one month after the due date for payment) and then the increased additional dues were imposed to KRW 30,335,2305,305).

C. On July 26, 2005, Nonparty ○○○○○ apartment-dong, ○○○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○-dong, ○○○-7 shares owned by himself, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation. On September 28, 2005, Nonparty 0 sold KRW 423 square meters to Nonparty 0, ○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-7 shares. On September 28, 2005, Nonparty 423 square meters owned by himself and received KRW 68,800,000 from Nonparty ○○○, which is the only property following the date, remitted KRW 50,000,000 as the Defendant’s deposit account, respectively, to the Defendant’s bank account.

[Reasons for Recognition] 1-1 to 3, 1-2, 4, 14-2, 14-1 to 3, and 15-1 to 3-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' arguments and the judgment on them

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the non-party ○○○ was committing a fraudulent act with the intent to harm the plaintiff by donating the above 51,00,000 won to the defendant under the circumstance that the non-party ○○○ was delinquent in paying the value-added tax for the second period of 2003 and the comprehensive income tax for the year 2003. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that the non-party ○○○ opened the deposit account in the name of the defendant without knowledge of the plaintiff, and used the above 50,000,000 out of the above 51,00,000 won in that place, and it was not a donation to the defendant, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a fraudulent act.

B. Determination

(1) Formation of speculative act

(A) First, with respect to whether it was a speculative act to transfer KRW 51,00,00 to each deposit account in the name of the defendant, the non-party ○○○ transfers KRW 50,000,000 out of KRW 68,80,000 in the purchase and sale of the above land to the deposit account in the name of the defendant, ○○○○○○○, a stock company in the name of the defendant, and on July 26, 2005, the above fact that the non-party donated KRW 3/7 shares of the apartment owned by the defendant on July 26, 2005 was difficult to recognize that the non-party ○○○ and the defendant transferred KRW 1,00,000 in the deposit account in the name of the defendant, and it is hard to find that the non-party ○○○ and the defendant committed the above facts against the above ○○○○○○○○○○○-O-O,000.

(B) Scope of revocation and equivalent compensation

Furthermore, as to the specific scope of revocation and value compensation, the scope of revocation and revocation of a fraudulent act is limited to the amount of the cancelled creditor’s claim, barring special circumstances, so the amount of compensation is limited to the amount of the cancelled creditor’s claim. In this case, the creditor’s claim amount includes interest or delay damages incurred until the closing of argument after the fraudulent act is closed. Thus, the tax liability against the plaintiff of ○○○○○○ is 31,380,540 won (7,95,110 won + 23,385,430 won). Thus, the above donation contract concluded on September 19, 2005 between ○○○ and the plaintiff should be revoked within the scope of KRW 31,380,540 as the plaintiff’s claim, and the defendant, a beneficiary, is obligated to pay the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum 5% per annum from the day after the judgment becomes final and conclusive.

3. Conclusion

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