Whether an act of finding title trust real estate does not constitute a fraudulent act

In fact, evidence suggesting that real estate held by a director of a corporation or under the name of a corporation was a title trust is difficult to believe, and even if the fact of title trust is recognized, it could not be known that the real estate seller had a title trust agreement, and thus, constitutes a

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act)

1. As to each 1/2 of the 000 000 Ma-dong 64.1m2, Sungnam-si:

A. Revocation of the gift contract concluded on July 26, 2004 between the Defendants and the ○○ Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd.;

B. The Defendants implement the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on July 30, 2004 by the receipt of No. 39119 for the Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court, Sungwon District Court, Sungnam Branch, Inc. (hereinafter “○○ Construction”).

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 1-2-1, 2, 5-1, and 12.

A. Plaintiff’s taxation claim

The Plaintiff has a taxation claim amounting to KRW 216,377,460, including additional charges and aggravated additional charges, as stated in the attached list at the time of the instant lawsuit against ○○ General Construction Corporation.

(b) Disposition of the debtor's property;

(1) On July 26, 2004, the above company entered into a contract with the Defendants to donate 1/2 shares of each of the land indicated in the order, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 30th of the same month.

(2) At the time of the above donation, the above company did not have any property other than the above land, which is merely about KRW 77,561,000, the market price of which is about KRW 77,561,00, while it bears approximately KRW 100,000 as stated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 6.

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

According to the above facts of recognition, each taxation claim listed in the separate sheet against the Plaintiff’s above company was incurred prior to the fraudulent act as seen earlier, or at the time of the fraudulent act, there is high probability that the legal relationship, which is the basis of the establishment of the claim, has already been established at the time of the fraudulent act, and that the claim has been realized in the near future. Thus, the obligee’s right of revocation becomes the preserved claim.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

As seen above, barring any special circumstance, the act of donation of the above land, which is the only property of the Defendants, to the Defendants in excess of the debts, is a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, who is a creditor, and the intent of the Defendants, a debtor company or beneficiary, is presumed respectively.

Therefore, with respect to each of the above 1/2 shares in the above land, the above donation contract concluded between the Defendants and the above company has been revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendants are obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation of the above transfer of ownership to the above company.

C. As to the defendants' assertion

(1) The Defendants asserted that the act of re-trusting the above land in title trust does not constitute a fraudulent act, since Leejin, the father of the Defendants, was a de facto owner who purchased the above land from the pre-owner Park ○, and the above land was found in the form of gift in the future of the Defendants.

(2) The Defendants’ assertion as evidence on the above title trust facts include evidence Nos. 1, 2, 10, 10, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9-1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 2, 11, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 10, 2, 11, and 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 10, 3, and 11, and the testimony of ○○, 0, 00, 3, 4, and 00.

However, each of the above evidence or evidence Nos. 2, 3, 16, 8, 9-1, 2, 3, and 4 of the above evidence and the overall purport of pleadings is added to the above 20-party 2's above-mentioned 2's shares transfer registration of the above 20-party 2's shares and the above 20-party 2's shares transfer registration of the above 20-party 3's shares and the above 2's shares transfer registration of the above 20-party 2's shares and the above 20-party 2's shares transfer registration of the above 20-party 3's shares and the above 20-party 2's shares and the above 20-party 2's shares transfer registration of the above 20-party 2's shares and the above 20-party 3's shares and the above 2's shares transfer registration of the above 0-party 3's shares were already made under the above 2's shares and the above 9-party 2's shares.

In light of these circumstances, the above evidence is difficult to believe as it is, or is insufficient to recognize the above title trust facts asserted by the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(3) Even if the facts of the above title trust by the Defendants’ assertion are acknowledged, according to the evidence employed earlier, the least ○○, the seller of the above land, or his agent, can be acknowledged as having not known the fact that a title trust agreement existed between the above company and the Lee Jin-jin, the contracting party, at the time of the sale and purchase. Thus, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the above company as to the above land is valid under the proviso of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. Therefore, the above land can be deemed as a responsible property

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted.