Seoul Central District Court-2010-Gohap-89291 ( November 14, 2016)

The purport of the claim for cancellation of a fraudulent act contract and return of originals is also included in the purport of seeking compensation for value.

Where the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser are jointly and severally liable for the value compensation as joint defendants, their obligation to compensate for the value is jointly and severally liable to each other. In a fraudulent act lawsuit, a claim for the value compensation is sought for future performance, and the ratio of the damages for delay is based on statutory interest rate under the proviso of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc.

Article 21(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, proviso to Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc.

2015Na7789 Revocation, etc. of Fraudulent Act

Korea

KimAA et al.

December 17, 2015

January 21, 2016

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

Defendant KimA and BB cancel the transfer agreement concluded on August 3, 2009 with respect to each claim listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and each claim listed in the separate sheet No. 2 as to each claim listed in the separate sheet No. 1. Defendant KimA notified each of the relevant debtors with respect to each claim listed in the separate sheet No. 1 as to each claim listed in the separate sheet No. 2009. Defendant KimA notified BB to the effect that each contract for the transfer of claims was cancelled. Defendant KimA shall carry out the procedure for the cancellation of each claim for the transfer of mortgage listed in the separate sheet No. 2 as indicated in the separate sheet No. 3 as to each claim and each claim listed in the separate sheet No. 2 as to each claim. Defendant KimA shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 20 million won and each claim No. 300 million won as to each claim listed in the separate sheet No. 2010, Mar. 31, 2003>

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the defendants as stated in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that: (a) the second tax payment notice against B does not exist and the second tax payment notice against B is not legitimate; (b) the second tax payment notice does not exist; (c) the second tax payment notice against B does not exist; and (d) the second tax payment notice against B does not have any obligation to borrow KRW 1.1 billion against B; (b) the second tax payment notice against the DefendantCC by B was revoked; and (c) the said disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 402,332,000 is revoked; and (d) the BB paid KRW 80,444,200 as global income tax in 205; and (b) the BB paid KRW 80,44,16,233 with the deduction of each of the above amounts; and (c) the said amount was determined to reduce the amount by the decision of the Tax Tribunal; and therefore, (d) the property does not exceed the positive property.

However, each statement of Nos. 31, 32 alone is insufficient to admit the above claims of No. 1, 32, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. As alleged by the Defendants, there is no evidence to support the Defendants’ assertion that even if the amount of No. 31, 32 is deducted, the income and property exceeds the active property as seen earlier and the amount of No. 4

B. The Defendants asserted that the statute of limitations has expired as of October 2, 2014, on the tax imposed on October 1, 2004 to 2008 on the tax amount attributed from 2004 to 2008. However, there is no specific assertion or proof as to the completion of the statute of limitations, and such assertion alone is difficult to deem that the statute of limitations has expired. The Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.