The real owner of the instant real estate is not a delinquent taxpayer, and thus does not constitute a fraudulent act.

Since it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, as the actual owner of the instant real estate, held a title trust of the instant real estate to the delinquent taxpayer, and returned the name thereof, as long as it cannot be deemed that the instant sales contract cannot be deemed as a responsible property for the obligees’ joint collateral, it cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act, and it cannot be deemed that the delinquent taxpayer has an intention of deception.

Changwon District Court-2015-Ba-81795 (O2, 2016)

Korea

o

January 29, 2016

February 12, 2106

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

With respect to the real estate listed in the attached list, the contract for the sale of the real estate concluded on July 14, 2014 between the defendant and the OOO was revoked, and the defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the transfer of ownership completed on July 14, 2014 by the OOOO in the O district court Kimhae registry office.

1. Basic facts

(a)OO was owned by AAA on February 25, 201 by it under its own name on February 25, 201;

The registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 25, 201 with respect to the OO-gu OO-gu OO-si O 366-8 1,078 m2,094 m2,094 m2,094 m2,094 m2 (the land category of June 19, 2012 was changed from 'electric' and 'water sources' to 'factory site') on January 25, 201.

B. However, the OO did not file a preliminary and final return on the tax base of capital gains tax on the transfer of the above real estate. The OO head of the tax office decided and notified the OO of KRW 305,763,301 of capital gains tax on the transfer of the above real estate on August 1, 2014, and the OO did not pay the same, and the OO did not pay KRW 351,627,40 until the date of closing argument.

C. Meanwhile, the defendant is the OO's child, and the OO completed the registration of transfer of ownership on July 14, 2014 by the receiptOOO on the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") to the defendant as the OOO on July 14, 2014 (hereinafter "the sales contract of this case").

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and 6 (including Serial number);

Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff had a transfer income tax claim against OO, and the obligation to pay the transfer income tax was established on February 28, 201, which is the end of the month to which the transfer date belongs. On July 14, 2014, OO transferred the instant real estate, which is the only real estate for the Defendant, through the instant sales contract, under the status exceeding the obligation on July 14, 2014. Therefore, the Plaintiff revoked the instant sales contract by exercising the right of revocation against the Defendant, and the Defendant is obliged to perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership to OO as to the instant real estate.

B. Defendant’s assertion

Since the Defendant, after title trust of the instant real estate with the OO, was returned on July 14, 2014, the instant real estate cannot be deemed as an OO’s responsible property from the beginning of the year to the beginning. Thus, even if the instant real estate was transferred, a fraudulent act cannot be established. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim premised on the establishment of a fraudulent act is groundless.

3. Determination

A. Registration of ownership transfer under the name of the debtor with respect to real estate under the title trust agreement

Upon completion, the main sentence of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name is applicable to the registration in the name of the debtor, and thus, since the above real estate is not owned by the debtor, it cannot be deemed as a responsible property for the debtor’s joint collateral. Even if the debtor concludes a sales contract with a third party with respect to the above real estate and completes the registration of ownership transfer to that third party, it cannot be deemed as causing a decrease in the debtor’s responsible property, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act detrimental to the debtor’s general creditors, and it cannot be deemed that the debtor has an intention of deception (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da5069, Mar. 10, 200

B. In light of the following facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, as the actual owner of the instant real estate, held the title trust of the instant real estate to the OO and received the return of the title thereof, by comprehensively taking account of the health unit return to the instant case, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the testimony and the whole purport of the OO’s testimony and pleading by the O

① On February 17, 1988, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Defendant on the instant real estate under the name of the Defendant on December 3, 2004, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the mother OO on December 3, 2004. The registration of ownership transfer was completed again in the name of the Defendant on July 14, 2014.

② On the other hand, on October 21, 2002, the Defendant purchased OO-dong 277, 269-8 OO-O apartment 101 and 102, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant real estate on January 17, 2005 immediately after the transfer of ownership in the name of OO-O apartment.

③ On December 3, 2004, the Defendant paid property tax, etc. directly even after the ownership transfer under the name of OO. In addition, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement on the instant real estate as a lessor’s agent on May 24, 2006 and May 8, 2010, around the time when OO owned the ownership of the instant real estate, and required that the instant real estate be paid as a deposit account in the Defendant’s name.

④ On February 9, 1988, the Defendant purchased the instant real estate from the Park Sang-ok, and around that time.

Relevant documents, such as receipts for the payment of the registration tax, etc. on the real estate of this case, building management ledger, urban planning confirmation center, etc.

C. Therefore, whether the instant real estate is offered to the creditors of the OO for joint collateral

As long as the contract of this case cannot be deemed as a responsible property, it cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act, and it cannot be deemed that the OO has an intention to harm, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.