If the shortage of common security has deepened due to the gift of the sole property of the defaulted taxpayer, this constitutes a fraudulent act.

Since it is recognized that the delinquent taxpayer donated the apartment of this case to the defendant in excess of his liability, the donation of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance, as an act of disposing of property detrimental to the joint security of general creditors, and it is presumed that the defendant is a beneficiary.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2013 Gohap 551032 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AA and one other

AA has a duty to cancel each of the provisional registrations of this case.

B. Determination

(i)the occurrence of preserved claims;

A) According to the above facts, the Plaintiff added CCC the instant tax disposition.

The claim for value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as "value-added tax claim of this case"). However, in order for CCC to establish secondary tax liability according to the instant taxation disposition, there must be facts that meet the requirements of the principal taxpayer's default, etc., so the period of establishment shall be at least after the expiration of the payment period of the principal tax liability, i.e., the payment period of value-added tax in XX

After the lapse of November 30, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du13234, May 9, 2012).

B) The claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation is, in principle, a fraudulent act.

claim has already been made at the time of such fraudulent act, although it is required that such act was committed prior to such act.

There is a legal relationship which forms the basis of establishment, and it is based on such legal relationship in the near future.

There is a high probability of the establishment of a claim and its opening in the nearest future.

In the event that a claim has been created by realization, the claim shall also be subject to the creditor's right of revocation.

may be eligible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53437, Nov. 12, 2009).

According to the above facts, although the instant value-added tax claim occurred after the instant gift, the purchase and sale of the planning, which served as the basis for the imposition of value-added tax, was already conducted at the time of the instant gift, and the Plaintiff was notified of the result of the investigation into XX Planning on August 29, 2012. As such, the instant value-added tax claim had already been established at the time of the instant gift. Furthermore, insofar as the instant value-added tax claim was established due to the unpaid value-added tax in the near future, the instant value-added tax claim can be the obligee’s right of revocation.

C) Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion

(1) The defendants' assertion

Although planning applied for business registration as a general taxable person on March 22, 2004, the head of the tax office and the person in charge of the tax office issued a certificate of tax-free business operator on April 1, 2004, deeming that the details of the planning’s business constituted a tax-free business stipulated under the Value-Added Tax Act. The planning is for the following reasons: (a) the Plaintiff’s erroneous administrative guidance (which was changed to a tax-free business operator) as mentioned above; (b) the Plaintiff’s business as a tax-free business operator in trust; and (c) the Plaintiff did not pay value-added tax by filing a tax return. The instant value-added tax claim was eventually caused by the Plaintiff’s mistake; (c) the instant tax disposition should be revoked; and (d) the Plaintiff is liable for damages therefrom if the revocation is impossible. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has no right to CCC.

(2) Determination

Generally, the principle of good faith is applied to tax authorities' actions in tax legal relations.

for purposes of this section, at least, the tax authority has expressed its public view subject to taxpayer confidence.

business registration under the Value-Added Tax Act shall be made by the tax authority.

The legislative intent of identifying taxpayers of value-added tax and securing such taxation data;

(2) If the business operator reports a simple business, such report is prescribed by the head of the tax office.

It is established by submitting the business registration application, and the issuance of the business registration certificate is the same.

It is merely an act of issuing a certificate proving registration. Therefore, the tax authority is liable to pay tax.

A preliminary return of value-added tax made as a tax-free business entity for issuing a tax exemption certificate.

the tax authority’s business operated by the taxpayer solely on the basis of the receipt of the final tax return

such words or actions as suggesting that no value-added tax shall be levied, or as suggesting a public opinion.

The Defendants’ assertion is not possible (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du9370, Sept. 4, 2002).

In fact, the occurrence of value-added tax claim of this case is not the plaintiff's responsibility or the plaintiff's good faith

No claim shall accrue pursuant to the regulations.

Even if there were any errors in the instant taxation disposition, the instant taxation disposition was revoked.

Until now (in light of the above circumstances, the taxation of this case was serious and clear.)

It cannot be deemed null and void as it is). The Plaintiff still holds CCC the instant value-added tax claim, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant taxation disposition was revoked. The Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

2) Whether a fraudulent act was committed

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 5, 8, and 9 (including paper numbers), this case

At the time of donation, CCC only owned the OO building Nos. 00 (value of 000 won) in Seoul OOO-dong OO building O-dong OO building, deposit OO (OOwons in the NA bank account, OOwons in the NA bank account, and ORs in our bank account) with active property other than the instant real property. Meanwhile, as seen earlier, CCC bears the Plaintiff’s liability corresponding to the instant value-added tax claim. Ultimately, CCC was liable for excess of its liability due to the instant donation [OO-the total amount of active property other than the instant real property - the amount of value-added tax claim of this case, a small property excluding the instant real property]. Accordingly, the instant donation constitutes fraudulent act. In such a case, the Defendants, the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser, were presumed to have known of such circumstances.

(iii) the method of reinstatement;

Therefore, the gift of this case shall be revoked, and as such, Defendant AA as its restitution shall be the plaintiff.

In addition, the ownership transfer registration of this case, and the defendant BB shall each file for the provisional registration of this case with the defendant AA.

There is an obligation to implement the procedure for cancellation registration.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified and accepted.

on October 26, 2016

on 15, 2014

1. As to real estate listed in the Schedule of Attached Real Estate:

A. Revocation of a gift agreement concluded on September 10, 2012 between CCC and Defendant AAAA is revoked. (b) Defendant AA has completed with CCC on September 26, 2012 by the registration office of the Seoul Central District Court:

2) Defendant BB’s registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership, completed by Defendant AA on September 26, 2012 by the registry office of the Seoul Central District Court (OOO)

Each cancellation registration procedure shall be implemented.

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

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Basic facts

A. Notice to pay value-added tax to the Plaintiff CCC

1) From March 19, 2004 to December 31, 2010, the CCC served as the representative director of the XX Planning Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “P Planning”). (2) The Plaintiff (O head of the tax office) conducted a tax investigation on the XX Planning and notified that there was unpaid corporate tax, income tax, and value-added tax on August 29, 2012. The Plaintiff decided and notified that the Plaintiff would pay the P Planning’s unpaid value-added tax OOO members from around 2005 to November 30, 2012.

3) As the XX Planning did not pay the value-added tax by the said time limit, the Plaintiff, on December 20, 2012, determined and notified that the Plaintiff, a representative of XX Planning and oligopolistic shareholder, should designate as the secondary taxpayer of the said value-added tax and pay the share burden according to the CCC’s share ratio of the said value-added tax (hereinafter “instant taxation disposition”).

The value-added tax imposed on CCC as of September 2013 is a total of OO members as shown in the attached Table of Value-Added Tax.

B. On September 10, 2012, CCC (hereinafter “instant real estate”) donated the instant real estate to Defendant AA, a spouse, on September 10, 2012, and on September 26, 2012, on September 26, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court’s receiptOO of the said donation (hereinafter “instant transfer registration”).

2) On September 26, 2012, Defendant AA completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as “the provisional registration of this case”) against Defendant BB as the OOOO in receipt of the registry office of the Seoul Central District Court on September 10, 2012. [The grounds for recognition] fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Party A1 through 4, 10, 11, 11, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, and 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is a creditor with a tax claim against CCC. Since CCC donated the instant real estate to Defendant AA to fall into excess of its obligation, the instant gift constitutes a fraudulent act that infringes upon the Plaintiff’s tax claim. Therefore, the instant gift should be revoked. As such, Defendant AAA’s restoration to its original state, and Defendant BB, the instant registration of transfer of ownership, and Defendant BB.