(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.01.15 2018가단229704

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.01.15 2018가단229704

사해행위취소

Text

1. As to the shares of 2/5 of the shares in each land in the name of the defendant listed in the separate sheet:

A. B between the Defendant and B

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 25, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on March 8, 2016, the husband C, who died on October 25, 2015, entered into an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “the first division agreement”); (b) the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of B on March 21, 2016 with respect to each of the instant shares; (c) the Defendant changed the first division agreement with B on December 1, 2016 to the effect that the Defendant would solely inherit the instant shares (hereinafter “the second division agreement”); and (d) the co-owners registered the ownership of each of the instant shares on December 6, 2016 with respect to each of the instant shares (hereinafter “the second division agreement”). The Defendant changed the first division agreement with B on December 1, 2016 to the effect that the Defendant would solely inherit the instant shares; and (e) the co-owners registered the ownership of each of the instant shares on December 6, 2016.

C. The strong tax secretary imposed KRW 419,472,00 (including the total amount of KRW 27,077,120, 200, including global income tax for the year 201 through 2016, and the value-added tax for the year 201 through 2017) on B on the ground that B operated “E”, which is an advertisement site for illegal sexual traffic without registering its business from April 201, and on B (including the total amount of KRW 27,07,120 in value-added tax for the year 201 and the year 1, 2017).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

B At the time of the second installment consultation, there was no particular assets other than the shares in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 6, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation of a preserved claim needs to be, in principle, arising prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that form the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future, and it is probable in the near future.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2019. 01. 15. 선고 2018가단229704 판결

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.02.07 2017가단1404

-광주지방법원 2018.03.30 2017가단8369

-전주지방법원 2020.08.13 2018나12622

-대구지방법원 2020.01.14 2019가단131920