Whether the restoration of title trust ownership constitutes a fraudulent act

If the Nonparty, who is a delinquent taxpayer, acquired real estate from the Defendant’s funds at the time of an auction, the ownership of real estate in the Republic of Korea and overseas constitutes a title trust relationship between the person who bears the ownership or purchase price under the title holder;

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The contract of donation concluded on November 24, 2004 with respect to ○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○, 1,818 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) between the Defendant and Nonparty ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Office with respect to the instant forest is revoked. The Defendant will implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration made on November 25, 2004 with respect to the instant forest by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The non-party ○○○○ has operated the "○○○ Transportation" and the "○○ Logistics". With respect to the operation of the "○○○ Transportation" from the head of the tax office affiliated with the plaintiff, the non-party ○○○○○ was notified on September 30, 2004 by the due date for the payment of KRW 4,558,790 for the first time in 2004. The non-party ○○ was notified on October 25, 2004 by the due date for the payment of KRW 4,009,370 for the amount of the value-added tax scheduled notice. The non-party ○○ received the notification of KRW 1,117,810 for the second time of the tax year in 2004 as of March 31, 2005, the tax amount notified to KRW 893,140 for the interim tax prepayment notice as of November 30, 2004, the tax amount notified to the non-party ○○○○.

B. On January 24, 200, 000, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Real Estate Auction Procedure (hereinafter “the auction procedure in this case”) concluded a donation contract with the Defendant, who is his husband, on November 24, 200, with respect to the instant forest, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of successful bid on February 19, 2000 with ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on November 25, 2004. At the time of the donation contract, there was no property other than the instant forest.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4, 5, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Establishment of fraudulent act

Unless there are special circumstances, the debtor's act of selling real estate, which is only his own property, to change it with money which is easy to consume or to transfer it to another person without compensation, becomes a fraudulent act against the creditor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da000, Apr. 24, 2001). According to the above facts of recognition, ○○, the debtor, donated the forest of this case to the defendant, which is only his own property, barring any special circumstances, ○○, the debtor, donated the forest of this case to the defendant, which is only his own property.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

(1) As to this, the Defendant provided a successful bid price to ○○○○ in the instant auction procedure to install his parent’s grave and received the successful bid of the instant forest under the name of ○○○○○○. This asserted that the Defendant’s title trust of the instant forest to ○○○, which merely restored the ownership of the instant forest to the Defendant, the actual owner of the instant forest and thus does not constitute a fraudulent act.

(2) On the other hand, in the real estate auction procedure, where the permission for sale was granted under an agreement with the person who wants to purchase the real estate in his/her own name and to obtain a decision of permission for sale under another person's name, the person who takes the position of purchaser in the auction procedure is bound to acquire the ownership of the real estate for the purpose of auction regardless of who is the person who actually bears the purchase price. In this case, between the person who bears the purchase price and the person who lends the name, the title trust relationship is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da664, Apr. 29, 2005). On the other hand, the title trust agreement between the couple is valid unless it is for tax evasion, evasion of compulsory execution, or avoidance of statutory restrictions.

(3) Therefore, as alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant provided ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in accordance with the above agreement on the successful bid price and entrusted the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the subject matter of auction after full payment of the successful bid price, the execution court shall enter the date of registration in “the date of full payment of the successful bid price” (see Supreme Court Decision 724, Jun. 16, 199). According to the above, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s bid price. However, considering the fact that the above agreement on the successful bid price was concluded on January 19, 2000 KRW 100.

(4) Therefore, the instant donation contract merely recovers the title of the forest land owned by the Defendant, who is the actual owner of the instant forest, to ○○○, one’s own wife, and thus, cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act detrimental to the obligee, including the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.