Whether the scope of revocation of fraudulent act under Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act can be limited to legal acts performed by a tax obligor as a delinquent taxpayer or as a result of the commencement of the procedure for disposition on default (negative)

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 406 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Da14079 Decided November 8, 1991 (Gong1992, 73) Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30616 Decided December 12, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2003Da30616 Decided December 12, 2003

Korea

Korean Asset Trust Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Dakel, Attorneys Sogio-dam et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na14488 delivered on May 2, 201

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na44417 decided March 13, 2008

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The lawsuit for the revocation of fraudulent act stipulated under Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act is a kind of lawsuit for the revocation of fraudulent act under Article 406 of the Civil Act. There is no special provision that the requirements or exercise should be different from the provisions of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Da14079, Nov. 8, 1991; 200Da2801, Oct. 13, 2000; 203Da30616, Dec. 12, 2003; 2003Da30616, etc.). Even if Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that a tax official may seek the revocation of a fraudulent act against a delinquent taxpayer in the course of taking a disposition for arrears, it cannot be interpreted that a tax obligor can exercise his/her right to revoke only where he/she performs a legal act as a delinquent taxpayer or after the procedure for the disposition for arrears was commenced.

Examining the judgment below in light of the above legal principles, the court below held that since the liability to pay corporate tax for the 2005 business year of the company company of the reason department store (hereinafter “the reason department store”) was terminated on December 31, 2005, which is the taxable period, and the trust contract of this case was concluded on February 10, 2006 thereafter, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim equivalent to the corporate tax amount in arrears by the reason department store of this case constitutes a preserved claim in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act of this case. The above corporate tax became due after the trust contract of this case, and thus, at the time of the trust contract of this case, the trust contract of this case cannot be a fraudulent act since the payment period of the corporate tax became due after the trust contract of this case was not commenced, it is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and the judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the preserved claim in Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act and the revocation

2. On the third ground for appeal

The court below, based on its adopted evidence, concluded a real estate security trust agreement with the defendant as to each of the real estate of this case with priority beneficiaries in order to secure the above loan obligations, and held that the creditors of this case were not 850,000,000 won loaned from the defendant's assistant intervenors and trusted the real estate of this case to the defendant for the purpose of securing the above loan obligations. On February 14, 2005, the court below determined that each of the real estate of this case was transferred the real estate of this case to the defendant as collateral trust agreement between the defendant and the defendant for the purpose of acquiring the ownership transfer of each of the real estate of this case with priority beneficiaries, and that each of the real estate of this case was transferred to the defendant as collateral trust agreement of this case, and that each of the above real estate of this case was transferred to the defendant as collateral trust agreement of this case for the purpose of securing the ownership of each of the real estate of this case, and that the new trust agreement of this case was concluded between the defendant, as collateral trust agreement of this case and the new trust agreement of this case.

However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

The obligee’s right of revocation is a right to revoke the obligor’s fraudulent act’s disposal of property and to return to the obligor for the benefit of all creditors, and even according to the factual basis acknowledged by the lower court, the instant trust agreement concluded a new trust agreement with the Defendant with the reason department store in the same manner as the previous trust agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant for the purpose of securing the obligation to the Defendant’s assistant participant in accordance with the agreement between the reason department store and the reason department store in fact. The reason department store entered into a new trust agreement with the Defendant for the purpose of acquiring the obligation to the Defendant’s assistant participant in the reason network. Since the reason department store entered into a new trust agreement with the Defendant for the purpose of obtaining the truster’s status as above, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s status as trustor was a series of acts based on the single intention of succeeding to the status of truster in the trust contract, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles and evidence, which did not err by the lower court, as well as that of the Intervenor’s general beneficiary and beneficiary’s remaining 200 per share of real estate.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that the trust contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to fraudulent act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)