The contract of donation with the defendant in excess of the debtor's obligation must be revoked by a fraudulent act.

A donation contract concluded between a delinquent taxpayer and the defendant in excess of a debt is a fraudulent act that reduces the creditor's joint security, and the delinquent taxpayer knew that the act was detrimental to the plaintiff, and as long as the delinquent taxpayer's intent is presumed to be intentional, the defendant's malicious intent is presumed to be presumed to be presumed to be a beneficiary. Thus, a donation contract between the defendant and the delinquent taxpayer should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2011 Diversity 50397 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

IsaA

May 2, 2012

June 13, 2012

1. On March 11, 201, between the Defendant and BB, the gift agreement of KRW 000,000 entered into between the Defendant and BB, and the agreement of KRW 000,00 entered into on April 1, 201 shall be revoked, respectively.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3 Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. After conducting a general consolidated investigation of corporate tax on BB(hereinafter referred to as “BB”), the director of the tax office of the Plaintiff-affiliated racing shall pay the following corporate tax and pay the wage and salary income tax, but the BB is delinquent.

BB entered into a sales contract on March 11, 201 with the OMM Co., Ltd. to sell 8,300 square meters of land and 00 square meters of general steel structure, which is the only real estate of the OMM Co., Ltd., as price for each of the above real estate at KRW 000,000,000, the OOM 00,000 square meters of land and the general steel structure of the above ground, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the mobilization metal Co., Ltd. on the same day.

C. On March 11, 2011, BB received 000 won out of the above purchase price from the mobilization metal Co., Ltd. to its account for its port agricultural cooperatives, and remitted 000 won out of that amount to the Defendant’s deposit account in the Defendant’s foreign exchange bank. The Defendant received 00 won out of the above purchase price directly from the mobilization metal Co., Ltd. on April 1, 201 to its own bank deposit account.

D. The Defendant is the wife of Park R, who is the representative director of BB, and the BB was in excess of its obligations, such as the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the said tax liability on March 11, 201.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including household numbers), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. The assertion;

A. The plaintiff

BB transferred KRW 00 to the Defendant on March 11, 201, and among the above amounts, KRW 000, the remainder excluding KRW 000 and retirement allowances for the last three months of 201, 201, was donated to the Defendant by BB. Moreover, since the mobilization metal corporation remitted KRW 00 to the Defendant on April 1, 201, it may be deemed that BB remitted the real estate purchase price of BB to the Defendant, and the BB may be deemed to have given a donation to the Defendant. It constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, a general creditor, by reducing the joint security of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to cancel each donation contract concluded between BB and the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 00 and delay damages to its original state to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant

The Defendant’s money transferred from the BB on March 11, 2011 is not deemed to have been donated to the Defendant since the Defendant had been engaged in the BB and received the salaries, expenses, retirement allowances, etc. that he had not been paid while working in the BB, and the Defendant was used on April 1, 201 as the factory rent in BB, the new factory construction cost, and the relocation transport cost, and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been donated from BB.

3. Determination

A. Legal nature of each remittance of this case

(1) General theory

A creditor who claims that a debtor's legal act, etc. is a fraudulent act and seeks its revocation is not a fraudulent act in principle unless there are cases where the creditor asserts that the debtor's legal act, etc. is a fraudulent act, the existence of the debtor's legal act, and the fact that the debtor's insolvency was caused by the debtor's legal act, and the debtor's intention to mislead the debtor, etc. Meanwhile, in case where the debtor donated his own bona fide property to another person while over obligation exceeds obligation, such act constitutes a fraudulent act, unless there are special circumstances, but the debtor's joint security is reduced by paying the specific creditor's obligation to the specific creditor in collusion with some of the creditors, and it does not constitute a fraudulent act in principle unless there are cases where the creditor who seeks the revocation of a fraudulent act makes payment with the intent to harm other creditors, and the beneficiary claims that the payment was made to the beneficiary of the debtor's legal act, and it constitutes 208,000,000,000 which should be proved or 20,000,000.

(2) Whether the remittance of KRW 34,857,66 on March 11, 201 constitutes a gift

피고가 BBB의 대표이사인 박RR의 처남인 사실， BBB이 2011. 3. 11. 000원을 피고의 외환은행 예금계화로 송금한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고， 이러한 사실과 갑 제13 내지 19호증(가지번호 포함)， 을 제1， 3， 4， 6， 9호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정， 즉 피고는 2010. 8. 31.까지 BBB로부터 지급받지 못한 급여 등이 000원에 이르렀다고 주장하나， 피고의 2010년도 총 급여는 000원으로 피고가 아무리 BBB의 대표이사와 인척관계에 있다고 하더라도 피고가 주장하는 위 금원을 지급받지 못한 상태에서 별다른 조치를 취하지 않은채 계속하여 근무하였을 것으로는 보이지 않는 점， 피고가 주장하는 미지급 급여는 BBB에 근무하던 다른 직원들의 미지급급여와 비교해서도 매우 과다하여 피고가 미지급급여와 관련하여 제출한 자료를 믿기 어려운 점，피고는 2007. 2. 1.부터 2009. 10. 25.까지는 BBB의 대표이사인 박RR의 개인사업체인 QQ산업에서 근무하 였고，그 다음날부터 BBB에서 근무하였는데， 피고가 주장하는 퇴직금 산정 내역을 보면 근속월수가 49개월에 이르러 BBB에서 근무한 기간을 상당히 초과하고， QQ산 업에서 퇴사하면서 지급받아야 할 퇴직금을 BBB에서 지급해야 할 합리적인 사유를 찾아보기 어려워 결국 피고가 주장하는 퇴직금 내역을 믿기 어려운 점， 피고가 BBB로부터 지급받지 못한 급여 및 퇴직금이 았다 하더라도 원고가 이를 인정하여 스스 로 제외한 금원을 초과할 것으로는 보이지 않는 점 등을 종합하여 볼 때， BBB이 2011. 3. 11. 피고에게 송금한 000원 중 원고가 주장하는 000원은 BBB이 피고에게 증여하였다고 봄이 상당하다.

(3) Whether the act of remitting KRW 20 million on April 1, 201 constitutes a gift

On April 1, 2011, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant used 00 won for BB’s factory rent, factory construction cost, and transfer cost, etc., after concluding a lease agreement on some of the above above ground factory buildings on March 28, 2011, and BB was transferred to its own foreign exchange bank account. In full view of these facts, Gap’s 20 through 23, and Eul’s 15, and 18, the entire purport of the pleadings, the Defendant appears to have used 00 won in BB’s factory rent, factory construction cost, and transport cost, etc., but the Defendant appears to have used 00 won in the above personal business chain industry, and 100 won in its own account when it appears to have been leased to the Defendant, and 100 won in its own sales account, and 200 won in its own sales account were not leased to the Defendant, but leased to the Defendant.

(b) The establishment and reinstatement of a fraudulent act;

If a debtor donated his own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, such act would constitute a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, and a donation contract of KRW 000 concluded on March 11, 201 between BB and the defendant in excess of his/her obligation, which was concluded on April 1, 2011 between BB and the defendant, constitutes a fraudulent act that would prejudice the plaintiff who is the creditor, and BB, the debtor, was presumed to have known that the above act was harmful to the plaintiff, and as long as the debtor's intention is presumed to have been presumed, each of the above donation contracts between the defendant and BB should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff at the rate of 5% per annum as provided in the Civil Act from the day following this decision to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.