As to the assertion of fraudulent act by transfer of real property, the bona fide acquirer is justified

It is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was aware that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, a creditor, at the time of purchasing real estate, and that there was no other evidence to prove the good faith of the Defendant, and thus, it constitutes a fraudulent act.

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

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The sales contract concluded on September 1, 2006 between the defendant and 000 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet shall be revoked. The defendant will implement to 000 the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on September 4, 2006 as No. 85135 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. From August 9, 2005 to August 23, 2006, 000: (a) operation of a general game room business under the trade name of 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -000 - from August 9, 2005 to August 23, 2006; and (b) operation of 000' 000'' and 0000' - with omission of value-added tax for the business

B. From July 25, 2006 to September 26, 2006, the director of the Central Tax Office of the Plaintiff-affiliated Regional Tax Office investigated the omission of value-added tax in relation to the above act of omission of value-added tax, and notified the omission of sales to the 00 tax secretary, and then notified the result of the tax investigation on the 00-year-old tax secretary. On December 2006, 000, the director of the Central Tax Office of the Plaintiff-affiliated Regional Tax Office issued a disposition of correction for the increase of

Items of Taxation

Date of establishment of tax liability

Deadline for payment

Amount in arrears

Jinay

Value-added Tax

December 31, 2005

December 31, 2006

34,942,780 won

05.2 2

Value-added Tax

June 30, 2006

Ed = Scope

68,358,360 won

06.1 1

Value-added Tax

June 30, 2006

Ed = Scope

818,306,420 won

06.1 1

Value-added Tax

August 23, 2006

Ed = Scope

285,156,520 won

06.2 2

guidance.

1,206,764,080

C. On the other hand, on September 1, 2006, on which the above tax investigation was conducted, on which 000 had been conducted, sold the real estate indicated in the separate sheet, which is one of the only real estate (hereinafter the "dispositive act' of this case") to the defendant, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant for this reason (hereinafter the "share of ownership transfer registration of this case") was completed.

Facts without dispute (including grounds for recognition), Gap 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

As seen earlier, the fact that there was an increase in value-added tax on 000 after the instant disposition on real estate stated in the separate sheet is as follows: (i) Value-added tax is established at the time of the end of the taxable period (Article 21(1)7 main text of the Framework Act on National Taxes); (ii) it is necessary to confirm and pay the tax liability within 25 days after the end of the taxable period (Article 19 of the Value-Added Tax Act); and (iii) the Plaintiff’s tax claim against 00 was a value-added tax for 205 years prior to the instant disposition, and 200 years prior to the instant disposition. As such, the Plaintiff’s fraudulent return of 00, which was the basis of the revised disposition, had already been placed in legal relations, which was the basis of establishing the Plaintiff’s tax claim at the time of the instant disposition, and thus, it was highly probable that the Plaintiff’s tax claim was missing for 200 years prior to the instant disposition.

B. Whether the fraudulent act was established

(1) It is presumed that the instant disposition of this case’s real property, the only property of which is its own property, was sold to the Defendant immediately after a considerable amount of tax investigation conducted on itself, and that the Defendant, the beneficiary, was aware that the instant disposition of this case’s disposal was a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance, and further, the Defendant, the beneficiary, was aware that the instant disposition of this case’s disposal was a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da16276, Feb. 12, 1991).

(2) As to this, the Defendant did not know well at the time of the instant disposition. However, since the Defendant purchased real estate in accordance with the market price at the time when it was expected to redevelopment in the area in which the real estate as stated in the separate sheet was conducted, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s testimony of Nos. 5, 8, and witness of the first instance court is consistent with the Defendant’s argument, and the testimony of Nos. 1 through 4, 6, and 7 is insufficient to reverse the above presumption that the Defendant knew that it would prejudice the Plaintiff as the obligee at the time of the purchase of the instant real estate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s good faith.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant revoked the disposition of this case with 000, which is a fraudulent act, and is obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of this case to restore the original state to its original state, so the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the execution of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.