Changwon District Court 2007Kadan17549 (No. 17, 2008)

Scope of fraudulent act subject to creditor's right of revocation

The fraudulent act subject to revocation is limited to the legal act conducted between the debtor and the beneficiary, and the legal act between the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser is not subject to revocation. In other words, the third party who created the right to collateral security upon acquisition by the beneficiary is not subject to revocation.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1.The judgment of the first instance, including a request for a change exchanged in the trial, shall be changed as follows:

(a)In the case of this incident, the part of the claim for cancellation of the mortgage agreement between the defendant, South-Namwon and the Gangseo-type.

B. The sales contract concluded on August 29, 2006 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet between Nonparty Kim Jin and Defendant Namwon shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 142,700,00.

C. The Defendants shall pay to each of them 142.70.00 billion won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

(d)to accept the plaintiff's request for money;

2. Three minutes of the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants, respectively.

Purport of claim and appeal

The disposition No. 1-B, paragraph (c) of this Article (the plaintiff tried to cancel the transfer of ownership based on the above sales contract due to the cancellation of fraudulent act and restitution to its original state from the first instance court, and sought compensation for the value that is transferred to the island, and the purport of the claim was modified).

On September 5, 2006, with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list between Defendant Namwon and Defendant Kang Jong-sik, the mortgage contract was revoked, and the registration procedure was implemented to cancel the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, which was made on September 5, 2006 by selling it on the real estate stated in the attached list, to Defendant Kang Jong-won, Nam-won, and issued on September 5, 2006.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts can be comprehensively admitted that there is no dispute between the parties, or that there is a comprehensive change of the overall purport of the pleading in the evidence Nos. 3,4,5,7,10 (including rectangular number), and evidence Nos. 1 and 4.

가.부산지방국세청은2006. 7. 26.부터같은해8. 31.까지소외김○진이대표이사로있는▢▢토건주식회사에대하여세무조사를실시한후,진주세무서장은2007. 7. 10. 위김○진에게2007. 8. 31. 납부기한으로2005년귀속종합소득세903，731，530원 (이하 '이사건조세채권'이라고한다)을고지하였다.

B. On August 28, 2006, when the tax investigation was under way, Kim Jin sold the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the instant real estate"), which is the property owned by the defendant Namwon, to the purchase price of KRW 235,360,00 (hereinafter referred to as "the instant contract"), and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on August 29, 2006 in the name of the defendant Nam Howon.

C. On August 28, 2006, Kim Jin changed the amount of KRW 100 million of the secured debt of the right to collateral security, which was set up as KRW 100 million with respect to the instant real estate, and cancelled the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security on August 29, 2006.

D. On September 5, 2006, Defendant Namwon completed the registration of the establishment of a collateral of KRW 300 million with the maximum debt amount as stated in the purport of the claim to Defendant Gangseo-sik.

2. Judgment on whether or not a part of claim for cancellation of mortgage contract is legal.

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff concluded a mortgage contract with the defendant Gangnam-do with regard to the real estate of this case, which is the only property of the plaintiff, even though he knew that he would harm the plaintiffs, who are the creditors of Kim Nam-jin, and that he completed the motive for establishing a mortgage with the above Gangnam-do. The plaintiff sought cancellation of the mortgage contract between the defendant Nam-gu and the defendant Gangnam-gu.

However, even if a creditor exercises his right of revocation against a beneficiary or a subsequent purchaser due to a fraudulent act, a fraudulent act subject to revocation is limited to a juristic act conducted between the debtor and the beneficiary, and a juristic act between the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser is not subject to revocation. Thus, a mortgage contract seeking revocation between the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser constitutes a juristic act between the debtor, Kim Jin-jin, which is not a juristic act between the beneficiary, and the beneficiary, and Defendant Nam-won, the subsequent purchaser, which is the subsequent purchaser, and thus, cannot be deemed a fraudulent act subject to revocation. Therefore, the part on the claim for revocation of a mortgage contract in the lawsuit in this

3. Determination on remaining claims

(a)Formation of the secured claim;

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee's right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle, it is highly probable that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been a bar bar board which serves as the basis of the establishment of a claim, and the right has already been established in the near future. In case where it is difficult for a claim to be protected by the obligee's right of revocation due to its realization in the near future, the claim can also be the preserved claim of the obligee's right

앞서 살핀 바와 같이 부산지방국세청은 2006. 7. 26.부터 2006. 8. 31.까지 김○진 이 대표이사인 ▢▢토건 주식회사에 대한 세무 조사를 통하여 2005년도 과세연도에서 가공 노무비를 계상한 사실을 발견하고서, 위 가공 노무비를 김○진에 대한 인정상여로 소폭처분하였으며, 이에 진주세무서장이 워 김○진에게 2007. 8. 31. 납부기한으로 2005년도 귀속 종합소득세에 대한 부과처분을 하였다는 것이므로, 위 김○진이 대표이사로 있는 ▢▢토건 주식회사에서 가공 노무비를 계상한 2005년도에 이며 이 사건 조세채권 발생의 기초적 법률관계가 발생하였다 할 것이고, ▢▢토건 주식회사에 대한 법인세 조사 결과 밝혀진 위 가공 노무비에 따라 소둑처분 등의 일련의 절차를 거쳐 이 사건 조세채권이 성립한 점에 비추어 가까운 장래에 위 법률관계에 터잡아 이 사건 조세채권이 성립되리라는 점에 대한 고도의 개연성이 있었을 뿐만 아니라 실제로 가까 운 장래에 그 개연성이 현실화되어 이 사건 조세채권이 성립하였다 할 것이므로, 이 사건 조세채권은 채권자취소권의 피보전채권이 될 수 있다 할 것이다.

이에 대하여 피고들은 김○진이 ▢▢토건 주식회사에 대한 세무조사 전 이미 이 사건 부동산을 매물로 내놓았다고 주장하나, 제1심 증인 강진호의 증언만으로 이를 인정하기에 부족하고, 딸려 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

B. Whether the fraudulent act is constituted

Unless there are special circumstances, the debtor's act of selling real estate, which is one of his own property, to change it into money easily for consumption or to transfer it to another person without compensation, to the creditor, and the act of selling the real estate of this case, which is the only property of this case, to the defendant Nam-won, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors of Kim Jong-jin, including the plaintiff, and it is presumed that the debtor's intention to commit an intentional act by Kim Jong-jin, the debtor, and the subsequent purchaser's intention to commit an act is presumed to be the bad faith of defendant Nam-won and defendant

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

(1) Defendant South Korea: (a) recommended that Jinho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho,

(2) 살피건대, 올 제1 내지 5호증의 각 기재(각 가지번호 포함), 감정인 김○근의 감정결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면，① 김○진은 2006. 8. 28. 피고 남○원에게 이 사건 부동산을 235，360，000원에 매도한 후 피고 남○원으로부터 35，360，000원을 자 신의 계좌로 송금받고, 피고 남○원으로 하여금 같은 날 1억 원을 이 사건 부동산에 판한 채권최고액 1억 원의 1순위 근저당권차인 강○길의 계좌로 송금하게 하여 강수길 에 대한 채무 1억을 변제하여 2006. 8. 29. 위 근저당권을 말소하였으며, 나머지 l억 원을 다시 자신의 계화로 송금받은 사실，② 김○진은 위 매매대금으로 2006. 8. 30. 7，000만 원, 2006. 8. 31. 7，000만 원을 자신이 운영하는 ▢▢토건 주식회사의 하나은행 마이너스 통장계좌에 입금한 사실，③ 이 사캠 부동산은 임야로서 2006. 8. 28. 기 준 감정가가 228，690，000원인 사실，④ 피고 남○원이 2005. 6. 27. 7，000만 원, 2006. 3. 29. 8，000만 원, 2006. 7. 25. 7，000만 원을 차용하였다는 차용증이 작성된 사실을 각 인정할 수 있다.

(3) 그러나 갑 제3, 11 내지 19호증(각 가지번호 포함), 을 제5호증의 4의 각 기재 에 의하면，① 이 사건 부동산 매매대금이 중도금이나 잔금지급 없이 매매당일인 2006. 8. 28.과 다음날인 2006. 8. 29. 이틀간 모두 지급된 점，② 피고 남○원의 농협 계좌로 이 사건 부동산 매매일자인 2008. 8. 28. 임○용(김○진의 내연녀인 임○란의 아버지이다)으로부터 1억 7，000만 원이 송금되었다가 당일 전액 인출되었고, 2006. 8. 29. 강○자로부터 1억 2，000만 원이 송금되었다가 다음날 전액 인출되어 그 자금출처 가 의심되는 점，③ 김○진이 2007. 6. 14. 검찰조사에서 임○용, 강○희, 이○명, 박○선의 모친, 피고 강○식 명의로 차명계좌를 사용하여왔다고 진술한 정，④ 김○진은 위 매매대금으로 2006. 8. 30. 7，000만원, 그 다음날 7，000만원을 자신이 운영하는 ▢▢토건 주식회사의 하나은행 마이너스 통장계좌에 입금한 후, 2006. 9. 8. 전액 인출하여 마이너스 대출채무 일부 변제를 가장한 것으로 보이는 점，⑤ 이 사건 부동산과 인접 한 임야가 2007. 2. 13.경 평당 217，076원에 매매된 점，⑥ 피고 남○원은 진양농엽협 동조합에 근무하다가 2003.경 퇴직하여 소득원이 분명하지 아니한 상태에서 이 사건 부동산 매수를 위하여 채무를 부답한 경위가 의심스러운 점，⑦ 피고 남○원은 20년 이상 진주시 진성면 대사리에서 농업에 종사하였다고 하면서도 주말농장으로 이 사건 부동산을 매수하였다고 주장하는 점，⑧ 피고 김○진은 이 사건 부동산을 매수하기 위하여 근저당권을 설정하고, 자금을 차용하였음에도 이 사건 부동산을 주말 농장 등 어 떤 용도로도 사용하고 있지 않은 점，⑨ 피고 남○원은 피고 강○식과 수차례 금전거래를 하였음에도 이 사건 부동산 이외에는 자기 소유 부동산에 관하여 근저당권을 설정하여 준 적이 없는 점，⑩ 피고 남○원은 피고 강○식에게 위 차용금을 상환하기로 한 2007. 6. 30.이후인 현재까지도 원금이나 이자를 변제하거나 근저당권을 말소하지 아니한 점，⑪ 피고 남○원은 김○진의 처남인 강진호의 처남이고, 피고 강○식은 본점 소재지가 통일하고, 김○진이 주주이며, ▢▢토건 주식회사에 근무한 강○호가 전임 대표이사로 있던 주식회사 ▢▢▢인터내셔널 대표인 점，⑫ 피고 남○원은 피고 강○식 으로부터 이 사건 매매대금을 차용하였다고 하면서도 매매대금 지급시점에 전혀 금전 거래가 없었고, 오히려 앞서 본 바와 같이 임○용, 강○자로부터 돈을 송금받은 점이 인정되는 바 이를 종합하면, 앞서 본 인정사실만으로 피고들이 선의라는 사실을 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없으므로, 피고들의 위 항변은 이유 없다.

(d) Method and scope of cancellation, restoration of light; and

(1) In a case where a legal act on a certain real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, in principle, the fraudulent act shall be revoked and the order shall be issued to restore the real estate itself, such as cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership. However, in a case where a fraudulent act is committed on real estate on which a mortgage is established, such fraudulent act shall be established only within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured claim amount from the value of the real estate at the value of the real estate. Therefore, an order to restore the real estate itself by cancellation of the registration of creation of mortgage by repayment, etc. after a fraudulent act, etc. shall be restored to the portion that was not the joint security of the original general creditors, and it would be contrary to equity, and an order to cancel the fraudulent act and to compensate for the value thereof shall be limited at the time of conclusion of fact-finding pleadings. Meanwhile, the scope of revocation of a fraudulent act shall be limited to the amount of the creditor's claim to the extent of the amount of compensation, and the amount of compensation shall also be limited to the amount of the creditor's claim.

(2) The registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the name of the river route, which was completed prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, was cancelled due to the termination on August 28, 2006. At that time, the fact that the secured debt amount of the said right to collateral security was 100 million won was as seen earlier, and comprehensively taking account of the entire pleadings in light of the results of appraisal by appraiser Kim-○, the market price of the instant real estate can be recognized as a private room equivalent to KRW 242,700,000 as of April 10, 2009, and the market price at the time of the conclusion of the pleadings can be confirmed as the above Party A, unless there are special circumstances.

(3) If so, as long as the amount of KRW 142,700,000 calculated by deducting the actual secured debt amount of the right to collateral in the name of the riverway from the value of KRW 242,70,00 at the time of the closing of argument in the trial at the trial at the court below, is less than the principal of the Plaintiff’s instant taxation claim, the scope of revocation of the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act and restoration to the original state against the Defendant South ○○ is the limit.

(4) Meanwhile, Defendant Gangnam-gu, who acquired a collateral after the cancellation of the existing collateral, obtained profits equivalent to KRW 300 million for the secured debt. At the time of the conclusion of the oral argument at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the court, the amount calculated by deducting the secured debt amount which was cancelled from the real estate value of the instant case, and KRW 142,700,000, which is also smaller than the principal amount of the instant tax claim at the time of the Plaintiff’s claim, can exercise the right of revocation and seek compensation for the value against Defendant Gangnam-gu, the subsequent purchaser, within the scope of KRW 142,70

E. Sub-committee

If so, between Kimjin-jin and defendant Nam-won, the sales contract of this case was concluded on August 28, 2006 with respect to the real estate of this case within the limit of KRW 142,700,00,00, and the defendants are liable to pay to each plaintiff the damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 142,700,00 as compensation for value, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from the date of confirmation of the judgment of this case to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for cancellation of the contract to establish a mortgage among the lawsuits of this case is unlawful and dismissed, the remaining claims shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair differently from this conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who accepted part of the plaintiff's appeal and modified the judgment of the court of first instance