beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 24, 2011, B entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant for the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on October 28, 201.
B. On December 31, 2012, B, who sold the instant real estate to the Defendant, notified the transfer income tax of KRW 73,362,950 on December 31, 201, without filing a capital gains tax report even after having sold the instant real estate to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and Gap evidence 2
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. Since the Defendant’s defense of this case’s fraudulent act was known to the Plaintiff around August 22, 2012, the lawsuit of this case filed for one year thereafter is unlawful as the exclusion period expires.
B. 1) In the exercise of the obligee's right of revocation, "the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the obligee becomes aware of the existence of the obligee's right of revocation, that is, the date when the obligee becomes aware of the obligor's fraudulent act while being aware of the cause for revocation. In order to say that the obligee was aware of the cause for revocation, the mere fact that the obligor was aware of the act of disposal of the property is insufficient, and further, it is necessary to know that the obligor was aware of the existence of specific fraudulent act and that the obligor had the intent to deceive the obligor (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23857, Sept. 24, 2002). The health of the instant case. The fact that the obligor was transferred to KRW 636,370,020,020, except for additional tax until the date of the instant sales contract, was not disputed between the parties, and even if the obligor was aware of the fact that the transfer income tax had not been registered under the name of the Defendant 281.