Where a delinquent taxpayer reports the renunciation of inheritance after the consultation division on inherited property under the premise that he/she renounces inheritance, it is not subject to revocation of fraudulent act.

Even if the defaulted taxpayer reported the renunciation of inheritance after the consultation with co-inheritors on the inherited property after division, if the consultation does not recognize the right of inherited property to the renouncer on the premise of the renunciation of inheritance, the renunciation of inheritance by the defaulted taxpayer cannot be subject to revocation of fraudulent act

Article 1042 of the Civil Act

2016 Gohap 53363 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

The AA

Korea

March 10, 2017

March 24, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

the Gu Office's place and place of action

The agreement on the division of inherited property concluded on December 15, 2014 between the Defendant and JungB regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked within the scope of KRW 269,00,000. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 269,00,000 with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this ruling became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

1. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff has a national tax claim amounting to KRW 14,153,868,910, which was liable to pay taxes before December 15, 2014 with respect to JeongB. The Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the division of inheritance (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement on division”) with respect to the instant real estate on December 24, 2015, with the purport that the co-inheritors of the Network RightsCC had determined B, the Defendant, D, dueD, due F, and dueGG. However, the said five persons entered into the agreement on the division of inheritance (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) with respect to the instant real estate on December 15, 2014, to vest the real estate owned by the Network RightsCC as the Defendant’s sole ownership, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant.

[1] The court below held that this case’s real estate was owned by all other co-inheritors, including the defendant, in excess of the debt amount. The court below held that this case’s real estate was owned by the defendant, and that this case’s agreement was a fraudulent act, and thus, this case’s agreement should be revoked within the scope of KRW 269,000,000, which constitutes the inheritance shares of the fixedB. The court below held that this case’s agreement should be returned to the defendant as a return of the value.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) Relevant legal principles;

A renunciation of inheritance has its effect retroactively from the time the inheritance commenced (Article 1042 of the Civil Act), and the renouncer shall be deemed to have never been an inheritor. Therefore, the agreement on the division of inherited property between the co-inheritors, other than the renouncer, even though the report on the renunciation of inheritance has not yet been filed or has not yet been accepted by the court, becomes retroactively effective after the report on the renunciation of inheritance was lawfully accepted and the effect of the renunciation of inheritance arises after the agreement on the division of inherited property has become effective. This is likewise applicable to the case where the waiverr participates in the agreement on the division of inherited property and became the party thereto, and such agreement is a content that does not recognize the right to inherited property to the renouncer on the premise that the agreement

Although the renunciation of inheritance does not affect the property of a person who renounces inheritance, it does not correspond to the act under the law of property. Rather, the renunciation of inheritance has the character as a “personal decision that is held based on the overall judgment of other inheritors, including the inheritee or subordinate inheritors.” As to such act, even if a debtor, who is an inheritor, is in insolvent, it is not easy for the obligee to cancel his/her fraudulent act because he/she is unable to waive inheritance. Moreover, inheritance is a comprehensive succession of the entire property rights and obligations, including all property rights and obligations, at the time of the predecessor’s death, and has a number of related parties, and it does not constitute a revocation of inheritance only between the obligee and the subsequent purchaser on the legal act that constitutes a fraudulent act, whose qualification as an inheritor itself is determined by the law of property law. In addition, even if there is an application of the obligee’s right of revocation on the legal act that constitutes a fraudulent act, the legal relationship surrounding inheritance does not become more complicated than that of the obligee at the 20th stage of the declaration of inheritance at the 10th stage of inheritance.

B. In the instant case

In full view of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and evidence Nos. 1, the deceased on Dec. 15, 2014, and JungB died on Jan. 21, 2015, and the deceased on Mar. 20, 2015, under which the report of renunciation of inheritance was not accepted, the children of the deceased on Mar. 20, 2015, including the defendant, affix their seals on the agreement of this case where the ownership transfer registration was completed on March 24, 2015 on the real estate of this case to the defendant, and the Seoul Family Court accepted the report of renunciation of inheritance on Apr. 14, 2015 on Dec. 15, 2015, the deceased on Dec. 21, 2014. In light of the above facts and legal principles, the act of JungB’s renunciation of inheritance was not subject to the revocation of inheritance agreement of this case’s inheritance, but not the heir’s waiver of inheritance agreement.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant agreement should be revoked as a fraudulent act cannot be accepted without further review as to the remainder of the issue.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.