Whether it constitutes a fraudulent act

In the event that an employee is insolvent by transferring the only property in arrears to his/her natives, the obligee’s joint security is reduced, and the Defendant, a beneficiary, is presumed to have been aware of such circumstances, barring any special circumstances.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

1. The sales contract concluded between the defendant and the non-party ○○ on October 5, 2005 is revoked.

2. On November 24, 2005, the Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by ○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the real estate indicated in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around September 10, 200, Nonparty ○○○ (○○○○○, 351-1) operated a wholesale business, such as a malicious company, in the trade name of ○○○-dong 351-1, but closed the business on or around December 31, 2005, but did not pay KRW 98,736,180 in total of global income tax and value-added tax.

B. Accordingly, from September 1, 2005 to October 28, 2005, the Plaintiff conducted a tax investigation with respect to this ○○.

C. However, on November 24, 2005, 2005, the above ○○○, who had been an employee of the above ○○○○○, had completed the registration of transfer of ownership as stated in Section 2. of the Disposition No. 2, which was based on the sale on October 5, 2005 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the real estate of this case”) on the Defendant, who was in close relationship with the above ○○○○ at the time of high school. The above ○○ had no other property other than the real estate

[Evidence] 1-1, 2, 3, A2-1, 2, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the above sales contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant has the duty to cancel the above registration of transfer for ownership for the restoration to its original state, as it is presumed that the above ○○○○ only sells the real estate in this case, which is the only property with debt against the plaintiff, and the act of completing the registration of transfer for ownership transfer for this reason reduces the creditor's joint security, and the defendant, a beneficiary, was aware of such circumstances, barring any special circumstances.

B. The defendant, when he has a loan claim against this ○○○, assessed the real estate amounting to KRW 1.6 million, and paid the difference, and received the registration of transfer of ownership from this ○○○○ as a result of the registration of transfer of ownership from the above ○○○. In addition, even if the defendant had the above loan claim against this ○○○○, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in this case on the grounds as alleged by the defendant, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant is not a malicious beneficiary, and there is no other evidence to reverse the defendant's presumption of bad faith, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.