Whether the revocation of the fraudulent act is subject to the claim

In cases where the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the debtor who is a title trustee is null and void, since such real estate is not owned by the debtor, it cannot be deemed a responsible property for the debtor's joint collateral, and since it is not a property owned by the debtor, the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 1, 2003, 2003, ○○○○○○○○○○○ was registered as the trade name, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and KRW 37,951,560 of the value-added tax imposed on the first and second years in 2004.

B. On September 173, 2004, 2004, ○○○ court received ○○○ registry office from the Defendant, and 5215 as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in its name, ○○○○○ court received the registration of ownership transfer from the Defendant on the ground of sale on August 16, 2004.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, entry A1 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that ○○○ and the defendant should cancel the sales contract between ○○ and the defendant on the ground that ○○○ and the defendant should cancel the registration of transfer of ownership due to the restoration of ownership, since ○○○ and the defendant’s act of transferring the ownership of the real estate in this case, the only property owned by them,

As to this, the defendant asserts that the real estate of this case was originally owned by ○○○○○, and that it does not constitute a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor merely because the defendant, who was the child of ○○○○, has found it again.

3. Determination

(1) Where the main sentence of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name applies to real estate, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the debtor who is a title trustee is null and void, such real estate is not owned by the debtor, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it is a responsible property for the debtor’s general creditors’ joint security. Even if the debtor entered into a contract to establish a collateral security with a third party on the above real estate and formed a contract to establish a collateral security with a third party, or completed a contract to establish a collateral security with a third party and completed a registration of transfer of ownership, it cannot be deemed that the debtor caused a decrease in the debtor’s responsible property. Thus, it cannot be deemed a fraudulent act detrimental to the debtor’s general creditors, and it cannot be deemed that the debtor had an intent to cause an injury (see, e.g.,

(2) According to the purport of each of the testimony and arguments and arguments by the Health Team, Gap 5, Eul 15, Eul 8, witness ○○○, and ○○○○○○○○○○○, a successful bid at a voluntary auction and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the real estate. On January 11, 200, on February 15, 200, 200, ○○○○○○○, a joint ownership transfer registration for the real estate was made in the name of the husband of ○○○○○○○○○, a joint owner of the real estate, on April 13, 2004. Accordingly, according to the above provisional registration, the creditors’ provisional attachment and seizure registration for the real estate of this case, which was made from May 201 to October 203, 204, ○○○○○○○, a mortgage over the real estate of this case, was established under the name of ○○○○○○○○’s obligations.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the real estate of this case is owned by ○○○○ is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is rejected as it is without merit.