Youngju District Court Cheongju District Court -2014-Kadan-5172 (O2, 2015)

Whether there is a false conspiracy or false indication of mortgage contract concluded immediately before the statutory due date of transfer income tax

(1) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff or the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize the fact that the registration of the creation of the instant collateral security was completed based on a false conspiracy.

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Cheongju District Court 2015Na11688 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

○ ○

National Flag

December 03, 2015

2016.014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The cancellation of the mortgage contract concluded on May 13, 2013 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") between the defendant and the next ○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the "right to collateral security contract of this case") is revoked. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the right to collateral security registration of the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the "right to collateral security registration of this case") completed on May 13, 2013 by Cheongju District District Court ○○○ registry (hereinafter referred to as the "right to collateral security of this case").

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial and adding the following judgments to those stated in Paragraph 2. Therefore, this Court’s reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case was established by a false representation of agreement between the defendant and the next ○○○, the plaintiff seeks implementation of the registration procedure for cancellation of the establishment of a collateral security of this case against the defendant in subrogation of the next ○○○

2) On May 31, 2013, the statutory due date of the Plaintiff’s claim for transfer income tax in arrears against ○○○○, a preserved claim in the instant case, was presumed to be a false contract pursuant to the proviso of Article 35(4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which was concluded on May 13, 2013, which was one year before the statutory due date, was presumed to be a false contract pursuant to the proviso of Article 35(4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the Plaintiff was difficult to collect national taxes from ○○○ due to the completion of the registration of the establishment of the instant nearby mortgage pursuant to the aforementioned false contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the instant

B. Determination

1) Determination of the assertion of false conspiracy

(3) Examining the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Construction Contract newly constructed evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4-3, 7, 8-2, and 10-2, respectively; and (b) the Plaintiff’s 34,00,000,00 won of the instant real estate purchased the instant real estate from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on April 10, 203, and the Defendant’s 31,00,000,000 won of the remainder of the purchase price on the date of the instant contract, and the Defendant’s 31,00,000,000 won of the instant real estate purchased the instant real estate under the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Construction Contract, which appears to have been established on May 10, 200, respectively, and the Defendant’s assertion that the instant real estate would have been sold the instant real estate.

2) Determination on the assertion based on Article 35(4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to view the mortgage contract of this case as a false contract under Article 35(4) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.