The agreement on division of inherited property between the defendant and the delinquent shall not constitute a fraudulent act.

It is difficult to view that the Defendant was aware of the existence of tax liability or excess of the delinquent’s obligation at the time of the split-off agreement on the instant real estate by the delinquent, and thus does not constitute fraudulent act.

2018Gaba207178 (Revocation of Fraudulent Act)

Korea

AA

December 14, 2018

January 18, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

1. The defendant shall revoke the agreement on division of inherited property concluded on October 11, 2016 with respect to 2/9 shares in the real estate listed in the separate sheet between Nonparty BB.

2. The defendant's KRW 64,000,000 for the plaintiff and this shall be from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive.

The amount shall be paid at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

As indicated in the reasons for the attached Form, the Plaintiff’s △△ Tax Office and △△ Tax Office imposed additional taxes and global income tax on 2011 through 2016 on CC Korea Co., Ltd. for the year 201 through 2016, and the amount in arrears as of February 20, 2018 is 540,939,410 won, and the above CCB Korea is a company substantially operated by the husband of the Defendant’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her she was

2. Issues of the instant case

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff asserts that the division agreement to waive BB's share of the real estate 2/9 of this case against the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act, and that the defendant should compensate for the value since the defendant's bad faith is presumed.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the aboveCC Korea has the husband of BB as the representative director and actually operated BB, and the BB is a beneficial family owner, and the defendant did not know the fact that BB is the representative director of the above company and did not know the fact that BB is the representative director of the above company and paid the price for BB's 2/9 inheritance shares.

3. Determination

가. 갑 제2 내지 4호증, 을 제1호증 내지 3호증, 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 피고는 장남으로서 이 사건 부동산에서 망 박OO과 어머니 박△△를 부양하며 살아온 사실, 망 박OO의 상속인들은 처인 박△△, 자식들인 박☆, 피고 및 BBB이 있는 사실, 피고 및 상속인들은 박OO의 사망 이후 박△△를 부양하기 위하여 박☆ 및 BBB에게 각 상속지분 2/9에 대하여 1억원 씩을 지급하고 피고가 단독상속하기로 내용의 분할협의를 한 사실, 박OO의 사망 당시 이 사건 부동산의 개별공시지가는 3억 8,900만원 정도인 사실, 피고는 위 분할협의에 따라 박☆에게 이전에 빌려 준 1,000만원을 공제한 9,000만원을 수표로 지급하고, BBB에게 남편의 사업자금 명목으로 빌려 준 3,000만원을 공제한 7,000만원을 현금으로 지급한 사실, 한편, 원고 소속 OO지방국세청이 피고 및 BBB을 강제집행면탈죄로 고소하였으나 □□□□지방검찰청은 2018. 7. 31.BBB의 상속지분포기는 피고에게 자신 지분을 매도한 것일 뿐 허위양도가 아니라는 이유로 혐의 없음 결정을 한 사실이 인정된다.

According to the above facts, it is difficult to view that at the time of the division consultation of BB on the instant real estate, the Defendant was aware that the existence of the instant tax liability or BB was in excess of the obligation, and therefore, the presumption of bad faith against the Defendant is broken, and thus, the good faith of the Defendant is recognized.

나. 원고는 이에 대하여 BBB이 사업자금 명목으로 3,000만원을 이전에 빌려갔던 점이나 지분에 대한 차액 7,000만원을 박☆과 달리 현금으로 지급한 점에 비추어 보면 피고의 주장은 믿을 수 없다고 주장한다.

However, according to the above facts of recognition, it is recognized that BB borrowed money to the Defendant, which is not due to the difficulties in the management situation of the aboveCC Korea operated by the husband, but BB was the representative director only in the name of the aboveCC Korea as a usual family owner, and it was difficult to clearly understand that BB was in excess of the secondary taxpayer due to the property status of the aboveCC Korea or the instant tax disposition from the above BB, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is not recognized without examining the remaining amount of compensation.