Whether a fraudulent act is committed

In the event that a taxpayer’s taxation on himself is imminent, the donation of his sole property to his spouse constitutes a fraudulent act even if the consultation procedure is completed.

Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 839-2 of the Civil Act Division of Property

1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. Revocation of the contract of gift dated 22, 2005 entered into between the defendant and Gangwon ○○.

B. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of cancelling the transfer of ownership, which was completed on September 27, 2005 by the ○○ District Court ○○○○○ registry office on September 27, 2005.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. ○○ regional tax office conducted from April 4, 2005 to April 20, 2005 through a tax investigation with respect to ○○○○○○○○-dong 2277-1 located in ○○○○-dong 2277-1, and found the fact that ○○○○ performed a construction project after being awarded a contract for the interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration work of the ○○ Institute on October 25, 2002, and received the construction cost of KRW 373,60,000 and did not file a value-added tax return. The head of the competent tax office notified the head of the competent tax office of the taxation data on the said project.

(b)In this regard, the head of ○○ Tax Office notified the Gangwon-do Tax Office to pay 58,502,300 won of value-added tax for the second period of December 31, 2005 through a notice of prior notice of taxation on October 13, 2005, after making business registration ex officio with respect to ○○○○○.

C. Meanwhile, on November 18, 2003, ○○○○○○○ apartment, 15-26, 15-26, 1508, and 1508, owned by ○○○○○○○ apartment, which was owned by ○○○ on November 18, 2003, donated real estate to the Defendant (the Defendant sold it to ○○○○○ on October 1, 2004, purchased real estate No. 1025, 1807, ○○○○○○○ apartment, 1025, 2.31, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on September 26, 2005, each of the real estate remaining after consultation with ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on September 27, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “real estate of this case”), and the Defendant made a donation registration of ownership transfer to 15.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6 evidence, Gap 7's evidence 1 through 7, Gap 13, and 14's evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

(1) Inasmuch as the facts are identical to the above, the act of donation to the Defendant of the instant real estate, which is one of his sole property, in the situation where the Gangwon-do Governor’s disposition of taxation on himself was imminent, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is the tax claim, and the Defendant’s malicious faith

(2) Therefore, barring any special circumstance, a donation contract concluded between the Defendant and Gangwon-do on September 22, 2005 constitutes a fraudulent act and thus revoked, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on September 27, 2005 by the ○ District Court ○○○○○ registry office and the ○○78.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(1) The defendant asserts that this case's real property was donated as a result of division of property, consolation money, or compensation for raising children according to divorce with Gangwon○○, and thus, does not constitute fraudulent act.

(2) However, in light of the above 1.1. factual basis, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s donation of the instant real estate was made on September 27, 2005, when the agreement was reached on September 27, 2005, before about one month after the agreement was reached. Thus, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant received a donation to the meaning of property division, etc. due to divorce, as alleged by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Furthermore, even if considering the purport of division of property, in light of the market price of the property subject to the claim for division of property as indicated in the evidence No. 8 and evidence No. 10-1 through No. 4, the transfer of property exceeding the value of the real estate of this case to the Defendant is excessive beyond the reasonable extent according to the purport of the division of property under Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, and thus, it is the same as that of fraudulent act.

(3) Therefore, the above argument on this issue is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.