Whether the sole act of donation of the real estate to the grandchild prior to the disposition of taxation is a fraudulent act

The sole owner of the real estate immediately before notifying the transfer income tax due to the transfer of real estate can be deemed as a fraudulent act if the transfer registration of ownership is made to the grandchild on the ground of donation.

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

1. As to the real estate stated in the attached list

A. The contract of donation was revoked on June 29, 2006 between the defendant and the ○○○○.

B. The Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed by the ○○ District Court ○○○○○ registry office on June 29, 2006, pursuant to the receipt No. 10183.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings: Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Cheongwon of the Gu

1. Establishment of the secured claim;

The head of ○○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff-affiliated ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, 1755 square meters prior to the 190 ○○○○ Dong, ○○○○○○○○○○○, on July 05, 2005, he did not notify Nonparty ○○○ of KRW 79,397,230 of the transfer income tax on July 2006 and did not pay it on August 31, 2006.

2. Occurrence of a fraudulent act;

A. On June 29, 2006, 10183 received on June 29, 2006, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), which is the only real estate owned by the Nonparty 5, the said Nonparty ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the ground of donation on the ground of donation on October 29, 2006. (On the list of the data on the property, etc. of Nonparty 5, it can be known that the instant real estate was the only real estate of Nonparty ○○○○○○

This is expected to impose capital gains tax on the non-party ○○○○, ○○○, 190 m2, prior to the transfer of 1755 m2, prior to the 190 m2, ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, and 190 m2, prior to the transfer to the non-party ○○, on July 05, 2005, while knowing that it would prejudice the plaintiff who is the creditor, the non-party ○○, who completed the registration of transfer of ownership

3. Acknowledgement of a fraudulent act;

As such, I became aware of the fact that the real estate in this case was registered in the name of Defendant ○○○○, through the perusal of the copy of the register dated 26, 2006 to seize the real estate in this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, in light of the above facts, the gift contract on the real estate of this case between Nonparty ○○ and Defendant ○○○ is concluded with the knowledge that ○○○○○○ would be exempted from the disposition of arrears, such as the seizure of national taxes imposed by the above head of ○○ Tax Office, and the Defendant also knew the fact. Therefore, the Defendant sought revocation of the objection under Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 406 of the Civil Act.

The plaintiff's restoration to its original state is that the defendant ○○○ has the obligation to implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of cancelling ownership transfer in the name of the defendant, which was completed with respect to the real estate in this case.