Whether transferring real estate during a tax investigation constitutes a fraudulent act

The fact that only the only property during the tax investigation is sold, and a part of the price is deposited into the corporate account operated by the mortgagee with the repayment of the debt to the mortgagee and the partial repayment of the loan is not a fraudulent act due to the sale to cover the creditor's legitimate repayment.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

A sales contract concluded on August 28, 2006 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet between Defendant South ○○ and Nonparty Kim○○○, and the Defendant South ○○○○ District Court’s ○○○○○ registry office on August 29, 2006 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet, shall implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 22083.

The contract to establish a mortgage was revoked on September 5, 2006 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet between Defendant Gangnam-do and Defendant Nam-do, and the Defendant Gangnam-do will implement the procedure to cancel the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the real estate listed in the separate sheet to Defendant Nam-do.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

The head of ○○ regional tax office, from July 26, 2006 to August 31 of the same year, conducted a tax investigation with respect to ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. with the representative director, and the head of ○○○○○ Tax Office notified the above Kim○○ of KRW 903,731,530 of global income tax for the year 2005 as the due date of August 31, 2007. The Kim○○ Tax Office, while conducting a tax investigation, sold the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the real estate of this case”), which is the only property owned by the Defendant Nam○ on August 28, 2006, on which the tax investigation was in progress, sold to ○○○○ on September 5, 2006. However, it should be revoked as a fraudulent act for the purpose of undermining the Plaintiff’s tax claims, which is a national tax imposed in the near future.

2. Determination

A. In principle, the act that a debtor sells real estate, which is the only property of his/her own, and alters in the order of money for consumption, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to general creditors. However, if there are special circumstances where the sale has been made at a reasonable price to appropriate for repayment to some creditors, it does not constitute a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 66Da1535, Oct. 4, 196).

B. In light of the overall purport of pleadings as to the instant case, evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 through Eul evidence Nos. 5-4, and testimony Nos. 5 and testimony No. 5-200, Aug. 28, 2006 as to the instant real estate to ○○○○○ in its own account after selling the instant real estate to 235,360,000 won on August 28, 2006, and KRW 35,360,000 on the same day, and one hundred million won on the same day was remitted to ○○○○’s account, which is the first priority mortgage amount of KRW 100,000,000,000 won on the instant real estate, and thus, the Plaintiff’s remaining ○○○○ account cannot be deemed to have been sold to ○○○○○’s account.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.