Seoul Central District Court 2010Kadan142409 ( November 07, 2011)

After the inheritance tax was imposed, a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act shall not be deemed to be an unjust exercise of the State's rights.

After the State imposed inheritance tax, the act of filing a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act is against the defendants' legitimate faith, and cannot be deemed as an unfair exercise of rights to the extent that it is not acceptable in light of the concept of justice, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendants' assertion is

2011Na5343 Revocation, etc. of Fraudulent Act

Korea

President AA 2 others

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Da142409 Decided November 8, 2011

June 14, 2012

July 19, 2012

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The termination of the agreement on the gift agreement concluded on February 4, 2009 between the networkB and thisCC on each real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked, and this Agreement shall be revoked, and this Agreement shall be implemented with respect to these three-seven shares, and this Agreement shall be completed with respect to these two-seven shares, and this Agreement shall be completed with respect to each of the two-seven shares, the Cheongju District Court Decision 5168, which was revoked and registered on February 4, 2009.

Purport of appeal

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court's explanation is as follows: (b) the part of the "(c) part of the judgment of the court of first instance," which was used by the court of first instance for 2. A. B. the part of the judgment of the court of first instance on the merits of the case of 3.2. B. The part of the judgment on the merits of the case of 2.2. B. as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, is the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for each further part.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) 2. Yellowine before the merits;

In light of the above facts, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to cancel the agreement on the instant real estate under the name of 20 years before the date of the instant claim, and to return the name of 20 years before the date of the instant claim to 30 years. The Defendants were not aware of the need to cancel the instant registration under the name of 20 years before the date of the instant claim. The Seoul Regional Tax Office determined the amount of tax and notified this CC on February 3, 2009 that the instant real estate was not owned by 10 years after the date of the instant claim, and that the Defendants were not aware of the need to cancel the instant registration under the name of 30 years after the date of the instant claim. Accordingly, the Defendants were not aware of the need to cancel the instant registration under the name of 40 years before the date of the instant claim, and that there was no other evidence suggesting that the Defendants had already been aware of the existence of the instant real estate under the name of 20 years after the date of the instant request for tax investigation by 10 years after the date.

B. (C) The Defendants, the nominal owner of the instant real estate, were dead, and the netB succeeded to the property of the deceased BB, and the Plaintiff, on the premise that the instant real estate is owned by the deceased BB, included it in the inherited property and levied inheritance tax on the Defendants in the instant lawsuit, even though the Defendants imposed inheritance tax on the real estate.

If the real estate in this case is judged to be not the netB's property but the property of thisCC, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive, the plaintiff asserts that the lawsuit in this case is a dance lawsuit and is in violation of the principle of good faith or the principle of good faith.

The principle of trust and good faith, and the parties to legal relations, in consideration of the other party's interests, refer to abstract norms that should not be exercised or fulfilled by exercising rights or fulfilling obligations in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, and in order to deny the exercise of rights on the ground that the other party has provided new shares to the other party or objectively seen that the other party is in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, and the exercise of rights against the other party's faith should be in a state that is not acceptable in light of the concept of justice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da3802, Dec. 10, 1991; 2002Da1321, Mar. 10, 206; 1000; 200Da11111, and 300,000,000,000 were still subject to taxation of this case; and 3.01.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is accepted in its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the defendants' appeal is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.