Whether the disposal of assets is a fraudulent act under the expected tax notice.

In a situation where notice of the amount of evaded tax is expected, if an entrepreneur without any other property than the sale assets sells the assets, it constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is the creditor.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

1. As to vessels listed in the separate sheet:

A. The sales contract concluded on November 29, 2005 between the Defendant and the ○○○○ Incorporated Company was revoked; and

B. The defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration made under Law No. 2454 on November 30, 2005 with the Busan District Court Decision ○○○○○ corporation.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 1 through 5, Gap evidence 9 through 14, Eul evidence 3 (including each number), and the whole purport of the pleadings:

(a) An unfair deduction of value-added tax or corporate tax using false tax invoices;

○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○”) is a corporation established for maritime transportation business, oil wholesale business, retail business, etc. with a view to concealing the purchase fact and securing data to evade tax evasion in distributing oil purchased from a foreign ship in violation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Although this ○○, a petroleum retailer, purchased the oil from △△ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ○○○), he/she paid a certain amount of fees to ○○, even though ○○ purchased the oil from △△, he/she was unjustly deducted from value-added tax or corporate tax by preparing related documents as if ○○○ was supplied with the oil from △△△ and submitting them to the competent tax office.

(b) Correction of value-added tax or corporate tax and arrears;

After all, ○○○○○ Local Tax Service, or ○○○○ Tax Office, under the Plaintiff’s control, found the fact that ○○○○○ was evading value-added tax or corporate tax by unlawful means as above, and notified on December 8, 2005 to pay KRW 2,502,273,270 in total on December 31, 2005. However, ○○○○○○○ paid KRW 315,742,760 out of the said evaded tax amount on July 25, 2006.

(c) Disposition of ships;

On November 29, 2005, ○○○○○ decided to sell to the Defendant a vessel listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “instant vessel”) a price of KRW 10 million (excluding value-added tax). On November 30, 200, ○○○○ had completed the registration of ownership transfer as described in the attached list No. 1-B in the name of the Defendant. However, at the time, ○○○○ did not have any property other than the instant vessel.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts of recognition, ○○○○○ was found to have evaded value-added tax or corporate tax by unlawful means, and even though it was highly probable that ○○○○○○○ would pay the evaded tax to the Plaintiff’s ○○ Local National Tax Service, etc., the sales of the instant vessel to the Defendant without any other property, other than the instant vessel, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, a creditor, and in such a case, it is presumed that the said sales contract was prejudicial to the Plaintiff, a creditor of ○○○○○○.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, although New ○○○, who had been employed as an auditor by ○○○○○, was old on the instant ship, the Defendant could have left a lot of profits and disposed of it when the demand of the oil tanker increases later, and the Defendant purchased the instant ship from ○○○○○○○. At that time, the Defendant did not know that ○○○○○ was evading value-added tax or corporate tax by such unlawful means as above, the Defendant is a bona fide beneficiary who did not know that ○○○○○ would harm the Plaintiff, a creditor

Therefore, according to each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 6 (including paper numbers), the defendant decided to purchase the ship of this case from ○○○○○ on Nov. 29, 2005, and paid the above KRW 10 million to ○○○○○ on the same day. On the other hand, the records are acknowledged as follows. The defendant purchased the ship of this case from ○○○○○○○○○○ upon the recommendation of ○○○○○○’s new auditor, who was the defendant’s friendship and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and thereafter, the new ○○○○○, who was not the defendant, maintains and manages the ship of this case. The establishment registration was completed with respect to the ship of this case with maximum debt amount of KRW 130 million,000,000,000 for the debtor, ○○○○○○, and ○○○○, which had no evidence to recognize it as a sale price for the ship of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and it is so decided as per Disposition.