Demurrer against distribution

Whether an act of donation to a relative of real estate by a delinquent taxpayer in excess of his/her liability constitutes a fraudulent act

Article 35 of the National Tax Collection Act

2014Na202482 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

080,000

November 19, 2014

January 16, 2015

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

1. Purport of claim

(a) For each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, revocation of each gift agreement concluded on December 20, 2010 between the defendant 0A and 0B (4OO-OOO-OOO-OO-OO-O-OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O

② Defendant 0A shall implement the procedure for cancellation of registration of cancellation of each transfer of ownership, which was completed as No. 17643 on December 29, 2010 by the Gwangju District Court head interest support, to 0B.

B. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2:

① Revocation of the sales contract concluded on December 29, 2010 between Defendant 0CC and 0B, respectively:

② Defendant 0CC received No. 17633 on December 29, 2010 from 0B to 0B.

shall comply with the procedure for the cancellation registration of each transfer of ownership completed by the Corporation.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

The reasons why this part of this Court shall be explained by the Court is the No. 10 No. 3 of the Judgment of the Court of First Instance

The term " July 18, 2011." as " August 15, 2011." and the term "OOO" in column 14 as "OOO" is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except where the term "OO" is used as "OO". Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

The taxation claim of this case is established between June 30, 2006 and June 30, 2010, which is the date when the taxable period ends. Since all of them are prior to the date of entering into the gift contract of this case and the sales contract of this case, the taxation claim of this case against the plaintiff 0B is the preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation that covers the gift contract of this case and the sales contract of this case.

(b) Presumption of fraudulent act, intent to commit suicide, etc.;

1) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 11, active property held by 0B at the time of entering into the instant gift contract and the sales contract, the aggregate of the officially assessed values of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, No. 2, No. 1 through No. 5, and No. 7, and No. 9, listed in the separate sheet No. 2, + OOO0 won of the individual housing price for each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, + OOO0 won of the sales price of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and OO0 won of the financial property, such as deposit claims against OOOO and Korean bank. On the other hand, even if the difference between the officially assessed value and the market value, the gift and the sales contract at the time of the instant case was concluded.

2) In addition, an act of an obligor in excess of his/her obligation to donate his/her own property to another person or to change his/her property into money which is only one of his/her own property to be consumed is a fraudulent act against a obligee unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da57320, May 12, 1998; 2007Da28819, 2826, Feb. 25, 2010). 0B’s donation of each of the real property listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to Defendant 0CC and selling each of the real property listed in the separate sheet No. 2 annexed hereto to Defendant 00,000 constitutes a fraudulent act. As seen above, the obligor’s intentional intent is to recognize the shortage of claims in the joint collateral, and the obligor’s intentional sale does not require harm or desire to harm the obligee, and if it is readily presumed that the obligor would change his/her property to be the sole property, it is presumed that the Defendants 25B50840.

C. Determination as to the defendants' good faith defense

1) Defendant 00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,00.

2) Defendant 0CC borrowed hospital fees from 0BB on April 199, and continuously occupied each of the above real estate after 0B’s mother, KimD, and it was merely purchased 0B from 0B on the ground that each of the above real estate was disposed of by 10B on the basis that 200 OB did not know of the excess of liabilities of 0BB. In light of the following circumstances, it was acknowledged that 100 won was fully paid to Defendant 1’s sales contract and 200 OB on the date on which the sales contract was concluded, and that each of the above real estate was purchased by 200 OB on the basis that 200,000 won was purchased by 20 OB on the basis that each of the above real estate was purchased by 00 OB on the basis that 200,000 won was purchased by 20 OB on the date on which the sales contract was concluded, but 200 OB0 on the basis that each of the above real estate was purchased on the No.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, since the instant donation contract and the instant sales contract on each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 between 0B and Defendant 0A with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 between 0B and Defendant 0CC are all fraudulent acts, each of them is revoked, and Defendant 0A is obligated to implement the procedures for cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and Defendant 0CC, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, are obligated to implement the procedures for cancellation of ownership transfer

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is with merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, so all appeals by the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.