Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Whether a fraudulent act constitutes a fraudulent act where ownership is transferred before the time a fraudulent act has been committed against a claim;

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

1. The contract of donation concluded on October 18, 2005 between the defendant and the non-party ○○ shall be revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on October 20, 2005 by the ○○ District Court ○○○○ Branch ○○○○ Branch ○○ Branch ○○ Branch ○○○ Branch ○○○ Branch ○○ Branch ○○ on the above real estate.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claims: To be as shown in the attached Form;

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

Grounds of Claim

1. Formation of tax claims;

(a) Circumstances of taxation;

The head of ○○○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s jurisdiction transferred the real estate located on October 13, 2005, on the real estate owned by Nonparty ○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○”). On the other hand, ○○○○-○, and three parcels of land owned by Nonparty ○○○○○○○○○, a real estate owned by Nonparty ○○○○○○○, and paid the transfer income tax without filing a report, and notified the transfer income tax as follows, but did not pay it until the day of filing the lawsuit (No.

(unit: source)

Sub-Items :

Date of Notice

Deadline for payment

Liability for Tax Payment

Date of establishment

guidance.

Principal Tax

Additional Dues

required by section 20

Transfer Income Tax

206.04.03

206.04.30

December 31, 2005

85,622,180

76,860,140

8,762,040

00Tax secretary;

B. Establishment of preserved claims

As of December 31, 2005, the date when the liability to pay taxes was established in gold 76,860,140 won for the ○○ ○○ Dok-ro, the national tax in this case may be the preserved claim against the right to cancel the fraudulent act in accordance with the following legal principles.

“The claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation is, in principle, arising prior to the commission of an act that can be deemed a fraudulent act. However, there is high probability that at the time of a fraudulent act, the legal relationship, which serves as the basis of the establishment of the claim, has already occurred, and that, in the near future, the establishment of the claim is likely to be based on such legal relationship in the near future. In the event a claim has been established as a result of the realization of such probability in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim, and the legal relationship, which is the basis of the establishment of the claim, shall not be limited to the legal relationship under an agreement between the parties, but shall be deemed to include the quasi-legal relationship, fact-finding, etc. with the probability of the establishment of the claim.”

According to the above legal principles, the real estate transfer date ( October 13, 2005) subject to the transfer income tax, which is the preservation claim of this case, has already been formed prior to the fraudulent act date (O. 20, 2005) and the legal relationship which is the taxation requirement for the collection of taxes is likely to occur prior to the fraudulent act of this case. Thus, the national tax of this case has been notified as a national tax in reality. Thus, the national tax of this case should be the preservation claim of this case.

2. Fraudulent act;

On September 15, 2005, 2005, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a taxable real estate for the Plaintiff’s preserved credit, transferred ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a real estate on three parcels of land outside the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which is the real estate indicated in the separate sheet of this case (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and completed a registration of transfer of ownership in the name of ○○○, a dependent on the receipt number No. 89952, Oct. 205, 2005, on the site of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which is the real estate subject to the Plaintiff’s preserved credit, on the ground of donation from October 18, 2005.

In other words, the non-party would expect the notification of the disposition of this case and inform that he would prejudice the plaintiff, who is the tax claim, make the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate of this case, the only property of which is his own property, to the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff, who is the tax claim, was in a situation where he could not obtain the satisfaction

3. Reduction of responsible property;

On October 18, 2005, ○○○ was the reason for this case’s real estate donated to his husband and wife on October 18, 2005, and it reduced the amount of liability property equivalent to KRW 39,330,000 by transferring the real estate to the Defendant at the time of donation (Evidence A 3).

4. Excess of debts;

At the time of donation of the instant real estate on October 18, 2005, ○○ does not have any positive property of the non-party debtor as of October 18, 2005 because there is no other property except the instant real estate. (Evidence A No. 4)

At the time of October 18, 2005, the non-party debtor's small property is subject to preservation claim of this case (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Da27905 delivered on November 28, 1995 and 200Da37821 delivered on September 15, 2005, on which the debtor's ○○○○ transferred the pertinent real property on which the transfer income tax, which is the plaintiff's preserved claim, was imposed by the sales contract of September 15, 2005, and there was a high probability that the tax would be imposed on the near future legal relationship because the transfer income tax was not paid. Accordingly, since the transfer income tax was imposed on April 30, 2006, it becomes subject to preservation claim of this case (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Da27905 delivered on November 28, 199 and 200Da37821 delivered on March 23, 201).

Therefore, due to the donation of the real estate in this case, the non-party debtors caused the excess of the amount of 76,860,140 won, and the amount could not satisfy the plaintiff's tax claims.

5. The intention of an injury.

The present ○○○ does not pay the transfer income tax after transferring the real estate subject to the taxation of the transfer income tax, which is the tax claim of this case, from September 15, 2005 to sale and purchase on September 15, 2005, and on October 18, 2005, after completing the registration of transfer of ownership in this case’s name, which is the property of this case, on the ground of donation, and on the assumption that it was the fact that he was in an in self-sufficient state, he would have known that he would prejudice the Plaintiff

6. Bad faith of the defendant

피고와 현○○은 母女 사이로 현○○과 피고와의 사이에 이루어진 이 사건 부동산에 대한 증여계약은 ○○○세무서장이 부과한 위 국세의 체납에 따른 압류 등의 체납처분을 면하고자 조세채권자를 해함을 알면서 체결된 것으로, 이 사건 부동산을 수증할 당시 이 증여행위가 사해행위라는 사실 및 현○○의 사해의 의사를 알았다고 보아야 할 것입니다.(갑 제5호증)

7. The date on which he becomes aware of a fraudulent act;

In order to collect delinquent national taxes against ○○○, this case’s gift was known that it was a fraudulent act according to the Data Status Table (Evidence No. 4) which was electronically printed on September 11, 2006.

8. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the current ○○○○’s instant donation constitutes a fraudulent act committed while knowing that it would prejudice the creditor, and the Defendant also knew the fact. As such, the Plaintiff’s revocation of the donation contract and sought cancellation of the ownership transfer registration on the real estate stated in the attached list by means of restitution, such as the purport of the claim, thereby resulting in the Plaintiff’s claim for collection of delinquent national taxes by ○○

Table 3

The indication of real estate.

☉ 토지의 표시

① ○○ also ○○○○○○○○-○○○○ 46 square meters in ○○○○○-si (9/14 of co-owner’s shares)