Whether they are subject to fraudulent act

payment to a specified creditor constitutes a fraudulent act

Article 30 (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act) of the National Tax Collection Act

1. The sales contract concluded on July 30, 2003 between the defendant and ○○ with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list shall be revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of cancelling ownership transfer, which was completed on July 30, 2003 by the receipt of No. 74995, on the real estate listed in the separate sheet to ○○○ District Court ○○○○○○ registry office.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1.Basics

가. ○○○은 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ로 2가 ○○상가에서 '○○컴퓨터'라는 상호로 사무용 기기 도매업에 종사하였는데, 원고 산하 ○○세무서장은 2004.경 ○○○에 대한 세무 조사를 실시하였다.

B. As a result of the above tax investigation, the head of ○○ Tax Office found the fact that ○○○ received the processed tax invoice of KRW 93,300,000 from ○○○○○○○○○ on January 2003, and around May 24, 2004, corrected and notified the amount of value-added tax on KRW 12,094,449, and the due date for payment on June 30, 2004. On the deductible expenses appropriated for processing, the head of ○○ Tax Office issued a notice of changes in the amount of income by disposing of the amount of income by being recognized as ○○○○○ in the year 2003, and issued a notice of changes in the amount of income by adding KRW 37,332,056 to the amount of tax initially notified to ○○○○ on September 1, 2004.

C. As a result, ○○○○’s amount of taxes in arrears came to reach KRW 52,360,580,580, totaling KRW 13,908,570, global income tax and additional dues as of May 1, 2005, and KRW 38,452,010.

D. On the other hand, on July 30, 2003, ○○○ sold (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, his mother, as his mother, on July 30, 200, and on the other hand, completed the registration of ownership transfer listed in the attached list (2) on the same day.

E. At the time of the instant sales contract, ○○○○○○○○○○○○, other than the instant real property, owned 1,150 square meters per ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○, 941 square meters, and thereafter, ○○○○, selling each of the instant real property to a third party and does not currently own it. Meanwhile, at the time of the instant sales contract, the market price of the instant real property was KRW 100,390,700 [the total amount of secured claims of the instant real property is KRW 60,945,450 + KRW 450,000 (the total amount of secured claims of ○○○○○○○○○○○○, 48,445,250), and is merely a claim amount of KRW 15,97,00, KRW 000, KRW 1097, KRW 300,079, the Plaintiff’s market price of the instant real property was excluding the instant real property.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 14, Evidence Nos. 1 and 14, each entry of Evidence No. 1, appraiser 00's market price appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

With respect to the instant lawsuit that the Plaintiff asserted that the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act, and that the Defendant filed against the Defendant for the cancellation of the instant sales contract and its restoration to its original state, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit was unlawful by lapse of one year after the Plaintiff was aware of the conclusion of the instant sales contract on April 2004, since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, despite having known of the fact that the instant sales contract was concluded, and thus, the instant lawsuit was filed against the Defendant.

However, in light of the overall purport of the arguments, the plaintiff notified the correction of value-added tax on May 24, 2004 and confirmed the fact that the plaintiff entered into the sales contract of this case on April 24, 2004 through the current status of the delinquent taxpayer's property investigation meeting, and the lawsuit of this case filed on May 24, 2005, which had not yet been more than one year thereafter, is lawful, and thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Judgment on the ground of the plaintiff's claim

(1) The existence of preserved claims

According to the above facts, although the taxation claim of this case has not yet occurred at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract of this case, in 2003 where ○○○ appropriated a park, there had already been legal relations that form the basis of the creation of the taxation claim of this case, and in light of the fact that the taxation claim of this case was established through a series of procedures, such as disposal of income, etc. according to the above virtual park revealed as a result of the data research, there was a high probability of the establishment of the taxation claim of this case in the near future, as well as the fact that the taxation claim of this case was established in the near future, as well as the possibility thereof was actually realized in the near future, and the taxation claim of this case was established. Thus, the taxation claim of this case can be the preserved claim

(2) The establishment of fraudulent act

According to the above facts, since ○○○○ was caused by the conclusion of the instant sales contract and the transfer of ownership on the instant real estate, the instant sales contract was a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, a creditor, barring any special circumstance, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

The defendant lent 50,000,000 won or more to ○○○ from around 1991 to around 2003, and it merely entered into the instant sales contract for the repayment of loan claims and accordingly acquired the ownership of the real estate. Thus, the defendant alleged that he did not know that he would harm the plaintiff as the creditor by entering into the instant sales contract. Thus, it is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion by only the descriptions of No. 2-1, No. 2-3, No. 4-1, No. 3, and No. 4-1, and No. 4-2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, the defendant and ○○○○ was very close to the defendant's mother's fraud, and even after the conclusion of the instant sales contract and the transfer registration under the name of the defendant have been made, the defendant cannot accept the above assertion that the real estate continues to exist in the instant sales contract due to the existence of the obligation of ○○○○ mortgage.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the sales contract of this case must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant has an obligation to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration in Paragraph 2 of the order completed with respect to the real estate of this case to ○○○.

4. Results;

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges