Revocation of Fraudulent Act

In light of the fact that the Defendant was a third party of the delinquent taxpayer and continues to reside in the real estate of this case after the registration of transfer, it is insufficient to reverse the presumption solely on the ground that the Defendant lent money to the delinquent taxpayer several times, etc., and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the Defendant is a bona fide beneficiary.

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

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The sales contract concluded on May 15, 2005 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet between the defendant and o is revoked, and the defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership completed under No. 49748 on June 15, 2005 with respect to the above real estate to 000.

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. Basic facts

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by combining each of the statements in Gap 1 through 4 and the overall purport of the pleadings:

A. When the Plaintiff operates a release release on bail with the trade name called "00 release on bail located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, the Plaintiff discovered the omission of taxes, such as value-added tax, using a false tax invoice, and on May 11, 2005, the payment deadline for the payment to 00 on May 31, 2005, notified the Plaintiff to pay the total of 33,465,260 won, including global income tax of 11,024,970 won and value-added tax of 22,465,260 won and value-added tax of 22,465,260 won for the second year of 202, and the notice was served to 000 thereafter.

B. On May 15, 2005, after being served with the above notice, on May 15, 2005, the 000 entered into a sales contract with the defendant, who is the outside third village, on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case"), which is one of the only property of the defendant, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant on June 15 of the same year under the receipt of the Incheon District Court North Incheon District Court's receipt of the registration office

C. 000 did not have any other assets than the instant real estate at the time of concluding the said sales contract with the Defendant.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Establishment of fraudulent act

According to the above facts, 000 was notified by the defendant of the notice of payment and concluded a sales contract on the real estate of this case, which is the only property owned by the defendant, with the defendant, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership to the defendant, constitutes a fraudulent act since it is not sufficient common creditors' joint security, and 000 was known that it would prejudice the plaintiff at the time of the sale, and it is presumed that the defendant, the beneficiary, is also the beneficiary.

Therefore, the sales contract concluded on May 15, 2005 between the defendant and 000 on the real estate of this case is revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration as a result of the above fraudulent act as the restoration to its original state.

B. Determination on the Defendant’s bona fide assertion

From February 200 to June 2005, the Defendant: (a) operated the on bail with the external village of 000; (b) lent KRW 25,000,000 to 00 in several times from February 2003 to June 2005; and (c) lent KRW 39,500,000 in total with the purchase fund of the instant real estate from May 7, 2004; (d) from June 100, 2005, the Defendant acquired the instant real estate through normal transaction, such as acquiring the said real estate from 25,000,000,000 in payment for the said loan claim, and completing the registration of ownership transfer; and (e) did not know that the real estate of this case was in excess of the debt amount at the time of its acquisition, the Defendant asserted that it constitutes a bona fide beneficiary.

Therefore, in light of the fact that the defendant was in a 000 external village and continues to reside in the real estate of this case after the registration of transfer, the above presumption is insufficient to reverse the above presumption just because the defendant lent money to 000 times, such as transferring money, etc., and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.