Changwon District Court Jiju Branch-2014-Ja-33938 ( October 24, 2015)

It should be determined not simply by the date of write-off but by considering the comprehensive circumstances.

The time when the creditor recognizes a fraudulent act is required to know the fact that the creditor was not able to fully satisfy the claim due to a deficiency in the joint security of the claim or a lack of joint security already in the state of shortage, and that the debtor had the intention of deception.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration of Fraudulent Act

Changwon District Court 2015Na33223 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

tanks 00

Changwon District Court Jinwon Branch Decision 2014Na33938 decided June 24, 2015

March 17, 2016

April 7, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and the following judgments are added to the corresponding part concerning the main defense that the defendant newly asserted in the trial, and the statement of Gap 9, which supported the plaintiff's assertion that the contract of sale and purchase between the defendant and the defendant was recognized as a fraudulent act, is identical to the statement of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the statement of the plaintiff Gap 9, which supported the plaintiff's assertion that the contract of sale and purchase between the defendant and the defendant was submitted at the trial, is added to the statement of the reasoning of the judgment of the court

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The defendant's main defense

The Plaintiff made a disposition of deficits on July 18, 2012 with respect to capital gains tax imposed on Cho 00. According to the regulations on the collection of national taxes, since the tax-related public official stipulates that a delinquent taxpayer's property status and a fraudulent act shall be examined at the time of the disposition of deficits, the Plaintiff should have known that each sales contract for real estate (hereinafter referred to as "the instant sales contract") recorded in the separate sheet between the Defendant at the time of the disposition of deficits and the Defendant constitutes fraudulent act. However, even if it is not so, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have known that the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act on April 3, 2013 or August 2, 2013, which is the date of the scheduled determination of the amount of capital gains tax on the instant real estate, etc. as of April 3, 2013, which is the date of the determination of the scheduled amount of capital gains tax on the instant real estate, etc.

B. Determination

1) Legal principles

The lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act stipulated in Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act is the kind of lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act as stipulated in Article 406 of the Civil Act, and there is no special provision that requires it to be different from the provisions of the Civil Act in exercising the right to revoke, and thus, it must be filed within the period for filing a lawsuit as stipulated in Article 406(2) of the Civil Act. Meanwhile, in exercising the right to revoke, the "date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the requirement for revocation by the obligee, i.e., the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor was aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while knowing that the obligor would prejudice the obligee. It is insufficient to say that the legal act is prejudicial to the obligee, namely, that the legal act is insufficient to say that the obligor’s disposal of the property is prejudicial to the obligee. Furthermore, it is required that the obligor was unable to fully satisfy his/her claim due to the lack of joint security or lack of common security.

2) Determination

A) First, we examine whether the Plaintiff was aware of the cause for cancellation at the time of the write-off on July 18, 2012.

Article 92(2) of the Regulations on the Management of National Tax Collection Affairs provides that an employee engaged in tax investigation shall also verify the current status of property in cases where a notice of tax payment exceeding ten million won is anticipated in the course of investigation and determination of data, and Article 128(1)8 of the above Regulations provides that a person in charge of disposition on default shall prepare documents, such as a report on investigation as to whether it constitutes a fraudulent act, when a person in charge of disposition on default fails to pay ten million won or more to a delinquent taxpayer.

On July 13, 2009, 00 0,000 0- 00 0- 00 - 000 - 000 - 00 - 000 - on the same ground, and on August 13, 2009, after completing the registration of ownership transfer on the above real estate, the transfer income tax was not reported to the competent tax office, and on July 13, 2012, 00 - the Plaintiff-affiliated KRW 00,000 of the transfer income tax on the above real estate (hereinafter “the transfer income tax of this case”) was notified to 00 - around July 2012. On the other hand, the sales contract on the instant real estate 1, 200 - 3, 4 were concluded on May 4, 2012 as the basic fact that the sales contract on the instant real estate was concluded on July 5, 2012, Gap 5, Eul 13-2008

However, according to the statement in Eul 13, when preparing "the review report on the disposal of import loss" around September 2012, the public official in charge of the plaintiff's 0-0 roads and the same 0-0 roads are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff had the sales contract in this case or had it known that the plaintiff had it known that the tax official in charge of the collection of national taxes would have caused the fraudulent act, and that most of the transferred funds would have used it for the repayment of debts." The survey person's opinion stated that "the tax official in charge of the plaintiff's 0-0 roads and the same 0-0 roads, such as the 0-0 roads and the remaining 0-0 roads in September 19, 2012 can only be recognized as being attached, and there is no other evidence to support that the tax official in charge of the collection of national taxes could not be recognized as a fraudulent act until the time when the tax official in charge did not recognize that the act constitutes a fraudulent act is performed.

B) Next, we examine whether the Plaintiff knew of the cause of revocation around April 3, 2013 or around August 2, 2013.

According to the statement Gap 4, the plaintiff is recognized as having rendered the scheduled amount of capital gains tax on April 3, 2013 with respect to the transfer of real estate in this case 3 and 4, and the decision to determine the amount of capital gains tax on August 2, 2013 with respect to the transfer of real estate in attached Tables 1 and 200 with respect to the transfer of real estate in this case. However, it is difficult to find that the plaintiff knew that the contract of this case was concluded between Cho 00 and the defendant, merely because the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the contract of this case was concluded between Cho 10 and the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

C) Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap 10’s statement, following the fact that the instant sales contract for 00 years old secretary’s 00 transferred to the 0-year regional tax office’s tracking and tracking and tracking the hidden property of the regional tax office, the Plaintiff’s 0 regional tax office established around January 2014 deemed that the instant sales contract for 00 years old was suspected of fraudulent act, and established an investigation plan for tracking and investigating the arrears around February 2014. On March 2014, it was investigated as to whether the instant sales contract was fraudulent, including sending questions about the developments leading to the purchase of the instant real estate and the relationship with 00 years old, and whether the instant sales contract was lawful. In light of such circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s 10 years old and previous investigation report was prepared to the effect that the instant sales contract constituted a fraudulent act as a result of the investigation conducted around June 2014.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.