Whether it constitutes a fraudulent act

The fact that the processing purchase tax invoice has already been received is the basis for the occurrence of the taxation claim, and it is anticipated that the amount of national taxes will be taxed, and the transfer of ownership in collusion with the defendant to be exempted from the disposition on default of national taxes is subject to the revocation of the fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act)

1. The contract of donation concluded on June 21, 2004 between the defendant and Kim ○○ shall be revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed by the receipt No. 00000 on June 30, 2004, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to Kim ○○○ District Court ○○○○○ registry office.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claims: as shown in Appendix 1.

2. Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

List of Real Estate

○○○○○○○○○○○-0 Forest 19,835 cubic meters of 000-0 Forest 19,835 cubic meters

More than 9,587 shares - Of 19,835 -

Cheongwon of the Gu

1. The details of delinquency in arrears and the establishment of the Plaintiff’s preserved claim (tax claim) by Nonparty Kim○-○

A. The head of the ○○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control did not file a global income tax return for the year 2003 on November 15, 2005, and did not pay the global income tax amount of KRW 1,574,460 (attached Table 1) for the payment period. Moreover, the head of the ○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control notified Nonparty ○○○ of the data on the reversion of the year 2002 and the bonus income amount of KRW 34,507,030 (attached Table 2) for the payment period of August 31, 2006, the global income tax amount of KRW 39,874,570 for the global income tax for the year 2003 (attached Table 3) and the global income tax amount of KRW 39,874,570 for the year 203 (attached Table 1) but did not pay it at all. As of the date of filing the lawsuit, Nonparty ○○ was 80, 27, and 1616.

Examining the process of assessment of global income tax on August 31, 2006, the head of the tax office of the Plaintiff’s affiliated ○○○○○○○○○○○○○-dong 000-00 ○○○○○○○ building (hereinafter “non-party corporation”) as the representative director of the non-party corporation located in the business year 2002 and 2003, in the non-party corporation’s corporate tax return for the non-party corporation’s corporate tax year, the non-party corporation’s corporate tax amount was included in the deductible expenses for the portion of the receipt of the processed purchase tax appropriated by the park at the time of the non-party corporation’s corporate tax return, and then disposed of it as the representative’s bonus on December 5, 2005 and February 2, 2006. At the same time, the notice of change in the amount of income tax was sent to the non-party ○○○○ on the non-party 20-party 30-year bonus income (see attached Table 20303).

B. On the other hand, a tax claim shall be legally established when the taxation requirements under tax-related Acts are met, and the time of its establishment shall be the time when the income tax is paid under Article 21 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, corporate tax for value-added tax, when the taxable period is terminated, and when the income amount or revenue amount

According to Article 5 (1) of the Income Tax Act, the taxable period of the income tax is from January 1 to December 31, and the bonus disposed of under the Corporate Tax Act is considered to have been paid on the date of receipt of the notice of change of income amount pursuant to Article 192 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, according to the above facts, a taxation claim against the non-party Kim ○○ was established before June 21, 2004, except for national taxes from attached Tables 2 to 3.

However, as above, even if the fraudulent act was received after the date of the establishment of tax payment, the fact that the processed purchase tax invoice of the non-party corporation was received exists as an act conducted in the taxable period 2002.2 and 2003.2, there exists a basis for the occurrence of tax claims in the near future, and there was a high probability of the occurrence of tax claims in the near future. The actual probability was realized, and the tax claim was established on December 5, 2005 and February 2, 2006, and therefore, the above two to three national taxes can be the preserved claim against the right to cancel the fraudulent act.

2. Fraudulent act and insolvency of Nonparty Kim ○-○

A. On June 21, 2004, Nonparty 2: (a) completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant Kim○-○ on June 30, 2004 by reason of the gift agreement on June 21, 2004 on the real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is one’s own property, under the name of ○○○○○○○○○ Office received on June 30, 2004 (see, e.g., evidence 3).

나. 소외 김○○는 별지 목록 기재 부동산을 증여할 당시 ○○ ○○시 ○○동 431-35 대지 2㎥{이하 ○○동 토지라고 합니다.)의 부동산을 소유하고 있습니다. 이 ○○동 토지는 공시지가로 1,000,000원(2㎥X500,000원)으로 평가할 수 있어 이 ○○동 토지만으로는 원고의 조세채권의 만족을 얻지 못하고 있습니다(갑 제4호증 및 갑 제6호증 참조).

3. The doctor of the private will;

The fact that the non-party ○○ Kim, a representative director of the non-party 2003 did not file the final tax return on global income tax reverted in 2003, and that the non-party ○○ household, a corporate director of the non-party ○○, received the processed purchase tax invoice from the taxable period of February 2, 2002 and the tax agency of February 2003, and at the time of the corporate tax return, it is anticipated that a high-amount of national tax will be imposed on him after the next year in collusion with the defendant, while knowing that he would prejudice the plaintiff to be exempted from the disposition on default of national tax due to the above default, he completed the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate listed in the attached list in the non-party ○○ on June 30, 204. The defendant ○○ and the non-party ○○, a child of the non-party ○○○, would have known the fact (Evidence evidence 5).

4. The date he becomes aware of the causes for revocation of the fraudulent act;

The plaintiff was aware of the real estate stated in the attached list as above by obtaining a copy of the register on September 26, 2006 in order to seize the real estate stated in the attached list, for which the transfer of ownership has been registered under the name of defendant Kim○○.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, in light of the above facts, the donation contract on the real estate listed in the attached list was concluded between the non-party Kim ○ and the defendant, knowing that it would prejudice the plaintiff, who is a tax payer, to be exempted from the disposition of default of national taxes imposed by the head of ○○ Tax Office on the above national taxes in arrears. The defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant, which was completed on the real estate listed in the attached list, as the restoration of the original state, and thus, the claim for the lawsuit was filed to recover ownership in the name of the