Whether the act of transferring the property under the assumption of tax liability constitutes a fraudulent act

Unless there are special circumstances, the act of selling and selling the apartment of this case, which is the sole property of a person in excess of debt, to the defendant is a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditor, and the intention of deception is presumed also.

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

1. The purchase and sale contract of November 27, 2006 between the defendant and the non-party ○○ is revoked within the scope of KRW 319,00,000.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 319,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final to the day of complete payment.

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

Cheong-gu Office

As set forth in the text.

1. Basic facts

A. When the non-party ○○○○○, a representative director and the oligopolistic shareholder, ○○○○○ (hereinafter “non-party ○○”) defaulted on the value-added tax and corporate tax for 2004 from 2001 to 2004 and closed down on September 27, 2005, the director of the tax office affiliated with the Plaintiff notified that the above ○○ should be designated as the secondary tax obligor pursuant to Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, but this ○○ did not pay the tax yet.

Items of Taxation

Reversion

Deadline for payment

Amount of delinquent taxes;

2. Date of designation of secondary tax liability

Value-added Tax

201.2

o October 31, 2004

136,613,800

December 14, 2004

Value-added Tax

1, 2002

o October 31, 2004

109,258,470

December 14, 2004

Value-added Tax

2002

o October 31, 2004

253,170,560

December 14, 2004

Value-added Tax

1, 2003

o October 31, 2004

249,982,740

December 14, 2004

Value-added Tax

2003

o October 31, 2004

171,608,620

December 14, 2004

ABL

201

o October 31, 2004

8,494,620

December 14, 2004

ABL

202

o October 31, 2004

7,359,830

December 14, 2004

ABL

203

o October 31, 2004

40,439,500

December 14, 2004

Corporate Tax

201 Business year

o October 31, 2004

21,613,680

December 14, 2004

Corporate Tax

204 Business year

o October 31, 2004

5,087,610

December 14, 2004

Corporate Tax

204 Business year

o October 31, 2004

54,216,950

December 14, 2004

Corporate Tax

204 Business year

July 31, 2005

2,187,103,900

September 30, 2005

Total

3,364,949,280

B. On November 27, 2006, 2006, the above ○○ completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on December 5, 2006, after selling the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “the apartment of this case”) which is its sole property under the above circumstances (hereinafter referred to as “the sales contract of this case”).

C. Meanwhile, at the time of the instant sales contract, the registration was cancelled on the ground of termination on December 19, 2006. The actual secured debt amount of the instant apartment was KRW 436,00,000, when the establishment registration was completed on November 27, 2006, consisting of ○○○○○○, the debtor, the debtor, the maximum debt amount of KRW 630,000,000.

D. As of the date of closing argument in the instant case, the market price of the instant apartment is KRW 755,00,000.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap's statements (including branch numbers) in Gap's 1 through 7, the result of the appraiser's appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Facts on the basis of determination as to whether the fraudulent act has been established and the scope of restitution;

A. Determination as to the establishment of fraudulent act

As to the facts found above, the act of this case where this ○○○, in a state of excess of debt, purchased and sold the apartment of this case, which is its sole property, to the Defendant, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditor, barring any special circumstances, and the defendant's malicious intent and beneficiary, which is the debtor, is presumed to be presumed. Thus, the sales contract of this case between this ○○ and the Defendant shall be revoked as a fraudulent act.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The defendant, as a single employee of the non-party company, did not know ○○○, was well aware of the above delinquency, and the defendant merely argued that he is a bona fide purchaser who purchased the apartment of this case for investment purposes. However, it is not sufficient to recognize the above argument just by the statement of the evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above argument. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion is rejected.

C. Determination on the methods and scope of restitution

The fact that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage established at the time of the instant sales contract was cancelled after the instant sales contract is as seen above. Thus, the cancellation of the instant sales contract shall be made within the limit of the amount calculated by deducting the secured debt amount of the instant apartment from the value at the time of closing the argument of the instant apartment at the time of closing the argument, and its restitution is reasonable by the method

As seen earlier, the market price of the instant real estate, which is close to the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, is KRW 755,00,000, and the actual amount of the secured debt 436,000,000, the instant sales contract shall be revoked within the scope of KRW 319,000 ( KRW 75,000,000-436,000), and the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 319,00,000 to the Plaintiff by means of restitution.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.