Action for revocation of fraudulent act

However, it cannot be said that he/she was aware of the fact of disposal of the property and that he/she was aware of the intention of harm.

National Tax Collection Act

Seoul Central District Court-2014-Gohap-562916

Korea

Oral 00 1

April 9, 2015

April 30, 2015

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. From June 2003, 000, a business operator who had been engaged in credit business in the name-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul.

underreporting interest income tax and comprehensive income tax during the taxable period from 2005 to 2009

had been.

B. The head of a tax office and the head of a tax office under the Plaintiff-affiliated 00 shall be from July 19, 2011 to January 4, 2012

Between September 201, 201 and August 201, 2013, 000

For the reason that interest income, etc. was omitted in connection with the business, the global income tax and

Interest income tax was notified to pay, and it was not paid by 000, and as of March 10, 2014

Tax amount is 14,539,650,360 won in total (hereinafter referred to as "tax claim of this case").

C. 00 The Defendant of his wife on August 27, 2010 and September 13, 2010, as shown in the separate sheet.

▣▣▣에게 1,141,600,000원을, 자녀인 피고 ◉◉◉, 피고 □□□에게 각

856,200,000 won was donated in cash, and the Defendants were to the extent that they were donated each of the above donations.

Sale price under subparagraphs 110 through 116, 755-14, 755-14, 10, 116, 200

In addition, 000 up to 4 times from October 27, 201 to January 20, 201.

over the past, Defendant YU additionally donated KRW 1,230,000,000 to Defendant YU.

B used the 101, 102, 201, and 202 of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Eastern 00 building as the security deposit and start-up fund for the start-up of the '000 Gangnam store' (hereinafter the Defendants).

Each gift act in this case is referred to as "each gift of this case".

D. The Defendants: (a) gift tax on each of the instant donations on the date indicated in the column for reporting the gift tax on the attached list.

The report was filed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 2 to 6 evidence

Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The defendants' assertion

The Defendants shall provide evidence as to each of the instant donations between November 30, 2010 and November 30, 201.

The tax return was filed on January 4, 2012, and the consolidated survey was conducted on January 4, 201 by individual entrepreneurs on 000 district tax offices.

On July 2, 2012, the competent tax office filed a complaint with the prosecutor on the grounds of the evasion of income tax.

In addition, on August 24, 2012, the Plaintiff issued a disposition on deficits for the delinquent tax amount of the instant taxation claim.

each of the instant donations at the time of the above time constitutes a fraudulent act, and joint ownership of claims

It should be viewed that he was aware of the shortage of security, and even if delayed, 000

In August 8, 2013, which was the last date of the tax imposition disposition, the court held that the above circumstances were known.

C. Therefore, the revocation of the instant fraudulent act instituted on August 28, 2014, which was one year after the lapse of one year thereafter.

Any lawsuit shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner.

B. Determination

1) In the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation, the obligee, as the starting point of the exclusion period, has become known.

The term "date" becomes aware that a debtor has committed a fraudulent act knowing that he/she would prejudice the creditor.

means the date. This is merely the fact that the debtor simply conducted an act of disposal of property.

In short, there was an intention to know about the existence of a specific fraudulent act, and furthermore, there was an intention to deceive the debtor.

on the other hand, the burden of proof with respect to the lapse of the exclusion period shall be revoked by the creditor.

A party to a lawsuit is the other party to the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102, Mar. 26, 2009).

2) In light of the above legal principles, as to the instant case, the Defendants’ respective donations of this case

The time when the gift tax return was filed was prior to the imposition and collection of the tax claim of this case.

At the time, it is deemed impossible for the Plaintiff to recognize that each of the instant donations was a fraudulent act.

This means that the crime of violation of Article 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is committed by fraud or other unlawful act.

It is established at the time of the withdrawal or deduction of taxes, and the debtor's creditor

the requirement of the establishment is different from that of the fraudulent act committed with the knowledge of this subsection, so that the requirement of the establishment is not satisfied.

The Plaintiff accused of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the sole basis that the tax office accused of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

It is difficult to view that each gift of this case was a fraudulent act at the time, and the provision on the collection of national taxes is a provision

One of the documents required to be written off in accordance with Article 128 is "the report on investigation as to whether the act is a fraudulent act".

However, at the district tax office, the fraudulent act of 000 at the time of the disposal of the tax claim of this case

The facts and arguments mentioned earlier, such as there is no evidence to prove that the examination was conducted even if it was conducted;

In light of various circumstances revealed in light of the overall purport, the Plaintiff’s assertion

at each time, each act of donation in this case is a fraudulent act, and further 00

It is not sufficient to recognize that there was a known fact, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Therefore, the defendants' defense prior to the merits is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The premise for judgment

Where a debtor continuously disposes of several properties, in principle, such acts are performed by each act.

whether it is necessary to determine the existence of an insolvent depending on whether the insolvency has occurred.

, in the event that there is a special reason to regard a series of acts as a single act, it shall be collectively held.

It shall be determined as to whether the whole is a harming nature, and whether there are such special circumstances

Whether the other party to the disposition is identical, whether each disposition is close to time, and the other party and the debtor.

shall take into comprehensive account whether there is a special relationship, the motive or opportunity for each disposition, etc.

Such determination should be made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da34740, Mar. 27, 2014).

As to the instant case, health care units, 000 and the Defendants are in family relations, and the Defendants are in 000 copies.

(1) The amount of commercial sales in which the Defendants shared the donated funds and the business funds of the Defendant YU YU

The use was made by 000 in the light of the other party and purpose of such donation, time closeness, etc.

It is reasonable to view each gift act against the Defendants as a single act by the Defendant. Therefore, in this case,

Whether each gift contract constitutes a fraudulent act or not shall be the first of the respective gift acts against the defendants

It will be examined as of August 27, 2010, which is the time of donation.

(b)the existence of preserved claims;

1) The establishment of a tax obligation, in the event that the tax requirements set forth by law are satisfied.

of the tax authority or the taxpayer's act is naturally constituted without the need to do so (or

Supreme Court Decision 2008Da84458 Decided May 14, 2009, etc.) and Article 21(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

According to this, the obligation to pay income tax is different from the tax authority or the person liable for payment when the taxable period ends.

Legally constituted even without any act of the Do.

Claim protected by obligee's right of revocation is, in principle, a fraudulent act.

It is required that such act was done prior to the commencement of such act, but it has already been established at the time of such fraudulent act.

claim is based on the existing legal relationship which is the basis of such legal relationship in the near future.

It is highly probable that it will be constituted, and it is actually possible in the near future.

If a claim has been realized and this claim is created, such claim may also become a preserved claim of creditor's right of revocation.

In this context, concerning claims or obligations arising after the debtor's disposal of property.

‘The probability of ‘the degree' as a requirement for the recognition of the obligee's right of revocation is simply the future claims.

- - Other

the debtor's damage at least to the extent that the debtor's liability is likely to be established.

claim or obligation, in general, by any person, under objective circumstances under which such claim or obligation may be inferred.

debtor's property disposal act in a state that it can be anticipated that the debtor's property disposal act has reached the degree of expectation;

and specifically, whether there is such high probability or not shall be made by the obligee.

the basic legal relations between the parties, the property status of the parties, and the details of the changes, general,

in this situation, the frequency in which claims or debts have occurred and the person of the general public

the debtor's disposal of property, the debtor's disposal of property, the interval between time and the occurrence of claims or obligations

In full view of the circumstances, an objective determination ought to be made (Supreme Court Decision 2012Da2012 Decided December 26, 2013).

41915 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 41915). Such a legal doctrine applies to a taxation claim.

Therefore, even if there is no specific taxation disposition at the time of the fraudulent act, there is no taxation claim.

Basic legal relations have arisen with respect to the occurrence of claims in the near future.

Tax claims have been specifically established through a series of procedures in the actual state of flexibility.

In other words, such a taxation claim may become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (Supreme Court Decision 201 March 3, 2001).

23. See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37821, June 29, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007.

2) With respect to the instant case, each taxation claim against the Plaintiff’s 000 constitutes either the health account and the Plaintiff’s 1.B.

The above tax liability was established on the last day of each taxable period, which is the date of establishment of the tax liability stated in the table.

Legal relations, which form the basis of establishing a tax claim, were established, and 000 its own business income.

by omitting or underreporting a report on interest income and such interest income in the near future.

High level as to the confirmation of interest income tax and global income tax claims based on the fraternity;

in fact, the director of the tax office and the vice-director of the tax office under the plaintiff were to 000.

Since the payment of income tax and interest income tax is feasible, the plaintiff's 000

- 8-

The taxation claim of this case is the preserved claim of this case for the revocation of fraudulent act.

3) Meanwhile, with respect to the preserved claim amount of obligee’s right of revocation, until the date of closing argument at trial after the fraudulent act

The interest or delay damages incurred shall be included, and the additional charges referred to in Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act shall be national taxes.

(1) If the payment has not been made by the due date, the unit to be charged with interest in arrears;

as a kind of tax, in so far as a taxation claim is recognized as a preserved bond of creditor's right of revocation, such tax

The amount of claims includes the additional charges incurred after the fraudulent act and until the closing of the arguments in fact-finding proceedings (Supreme Court)

See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753 Decided June 29, 2007; 2006Da66753 Decided June 29, 2007

Sector also becomes a preserved claim against the revocation of the fraudulent act in this case.

C. Establishment of fraudulent act

"Act detrimental to the creditor" subject to creditor's right of revocation means an act detrimental to the creditor's right of revocation.

(2) If the debtor's passive property exceeds his/her active property or exceeds his/her obligation

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant-Appellee] The term “act” means an act in which the state comes to fall further (Supreme Court Decision 2002Da27903 Delivered on August 27, 2002);

See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da90047 decided January 28, 2010, etc.

In the case of this case, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5 and considering the purport of the whole pleadings, 000

Preliminary property of KRW 2,588,261,759 in aggregate, such as deposits, real estate, and bonds in its name as at August 27, 2010.

B. A total of KRW 14,016,535,300, including the instant tax liability

14,546,535,300

At the time of 000 the small property was already in excess of the active property, and the above was in excess of the obligation.

Since each gift has aggravated the excess of obligation by making it a gift, the excess of obligation is deemed to be in excess of the obligation.

The act of donation of cash with each of the Defendants constitutes a fraudulent act.

(d) The doctor of the private will;

1) The 000 itself is interest income tax and comprehensive during the taxable period from 2005 to 2009

The income tax was underreporting, and thereafter, the Defendants had been in excess of their obligations as seen above.

Since each of the instant donations was made up of KRW 4,084,00,000, the total amount of which reaches KRW 4,000,000, 000

Therefore, the intent of the Defendants, a beneficiary, is presumed to be the bad faith.

2) As to this, the Defendants did not obtain interest income and only sustained damages.

It is not at all anticipated that income tax will be imposed on oneself because he/she has retired from credit business.

In addition, there is a dispute over the revocation of the taxation disposition of this case and the litigation to confirm the invalidity thereof.

In light of the above, the intention of 000 cannot be recognized, and in the case of the defendants, the lending company of 000

No matter how to impose a large amount of income tax on 000 at the time of each gift of this case.

The Defendants did not know that each gift of this case was made, and according to each gift of this case, the Defendants did not know that it was made.

The person has received money by account transfer, and he/she has reported and paid it to his/her gift tax.

Considering that the Defendants had no intention to harm the Plaintiff at the time of each of the instant donations, the Defendants were deemed to have had no intention to harm the Plaintiff.

The argument is asserted.

of the debtor's property disposal act, which is a subjective requirement for the revocation of a fraudulent act

any deficiency in the joint security of claims due to the decrease of such assets or

the creditor's claims cannot be fully satisfied due to the lack of such security more than one story;

that the beneficiary is in good faith, and that the beneficiary is in good faith.

New York is liable to prove (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da107198, Apr. 11, 2013).

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 15 as to the instant case

No. 2013Guhap50494, 2013Guhap60599 of the Seoul Administrative Court

A lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a lawsuit or disposition, which was filed, but all the claims were dismissed.

In fact, it is recognized that this 000 is equivalent to the positive property at the time of each donation of this case.

히 초과하고 있었던 점, 피고 ▣▣▣은 000의 처, 나머지 피고들은 000의 자녀의

notice of taxation after about one year to seven months from the date of each gift of this case.

It is due to the omission of a return on one's own income by 000, and such recognition has been made.

Further to all the circumstances indicated in the overall purport of the facts and arguments, the intent alleged by the Defendants

It is not enough to reverse the fact that the court found the above facts solely and to recognize the good faith of the defendants.

There is no evidence to prove otherwise. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

(e) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Therefore, each of the instant donations must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the origin following the revocation of a fraudulent act

상회복으로 피고 ▣▣▣은 위 증여받은 금액 전액인 1,141,600,000원, 피고 ◉◉◉

A. 856,200,000 won, Defendant △△ 2,086,200,000 won, and each of them, the judgment of this case is affirmed.

Damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day after the due date to the day of full payment.

have an obligation to pay.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the plaintiff's claim is accepted and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.