It is difficult to view that there are special circumstances that require compensation for value.

Since there seems to be no special circumstance that should be based on the value compensation, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted (it does not seem that the order to return originals can be issued ex officio as the claimant for the value compensation).

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration of Fraudulent Act

Daejeon District Court 2013Gadan210340

Korea

Gangwon A

November 13, 2014

November 27, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The purchase and sale contract of December 1, 201, which was concluded on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) between the Defendant of the Gu office and the Gangwon-B, shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 61,00,000. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 61,00,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 5% per annum from the day following the date the instant judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 1, 201, B entered into a sales contract with the Defendant, the father of BB on the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer (No. 202043 of the receipt on December 28, 201 of the original local court registry office).

B. The details of the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against the KangB are as follows. The Plaintiff’s active property as of December 1, 201, as of the time of KangB, is 873,34,400 won in total, including the real estate of this case’s KRW 150,000, KRW 700,000 in total, and KRW 00,000 in 954-13, the real estate of this case’s 9577, the same Ri 9577, the same Ri 954-4, the same Ri 954-4, and KRW 662,34,400 in total, and KRW 873,34,400 in total, and KRW 150,000 in total, KRW 70,000 in total,00 in total, and KRW 850,000 in total,00 in each of the above real estate located in the old land of this case’s.

A. The parties' assertion

1) 원고 강BB에 대한 조세채권 중 ��, ��, ��, ��채권 합계 194,049,400원은 이 사건 매매계약 체결일인 2011. 12. 1. 이미 성립되었거나, 그 성립의 기초가 되는 법률관계가 성립되어 있고 가까운 장래에 그 법률관계에 기하여 채권이 성립되리라는 점에 대한 고도의 개연성이 있으며 실제로 가까운 장래에 그 개연성이 현실화되어 그 채권이 성립되었으므로 사해행위취소의 피보전채권이 된다. 또한 위 채권을 강BB의 소극재산에 더하면, 이 사건 매매계약 체결 당시부터 이 사건 변론종결일에 이르기까지 무자력상태이므로, 이 사건 매매계약을 61,000,000원(이 사건 부동산의 시가 211,000,000원에서 이 사건 부동산에 대한 피담보채무액 150,000,000원을 공제)의 한도내에서 취소하고, 그 가액의 배상을 구한다.

2) 피고이 사건 매매계약 체결 당시 원고의 조세채권 중 ��채권 20,206,598원만이 성립되어 있었으므로, 이 사건 매매계약 체결 당시 강BB의 소극재산은 870,206,598원으로 무자력 상태가 아니었다.

B. Determination

가사 원고가 주장하는 ��, ��, ��, ��채권이 모두 피보전채권으로 인정되고, 강BB의 무자력을 인정된다 하더라도 아래와 같은 이유로 이 사건 청구를 받아들이지 아니한다.

In principle, restitution following the cancellation of fraudulent act shall be based on the return of the object itself, but in exceptional cases where it is impossible or considerably difficult (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da104564, Apr. 29, 2010). In full view of the overall purport of pleadings as to the statement No. 4-1, the establishment registration of a mortgage on the instant real estate was completed under the name ofCC Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. at the time of the instant sales contract, but the above collateral was changed thereafter, and the obligor still remains at the date of the closing of argument in this case except for partial change of the maximum debt amount. In such a case, it is difficult to view that there are special circumstances that the right of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant, the beneficiary, should be returned to B through the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant, and that it should be based on the equivalent amount compensation. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted (see, e.g., court order to return the real property ex officio.

3. Conclusion

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