The portion divided by a delinquent taxpayer to the former spouse in excess of the ratio of division of property at the time of divorce by agreement constitutes fraudulent act.

The profits attributed to the Defendant, who was the spouse of a delinquent taxpayer under the division of property contract of this case, exceed a reasonable ratio (50% of the net property value) due to the division of property of this case, and such excess amount constitutes a fraudulent act causing the shortage of joint security to the general creditor.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

201Aband 17022 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

IsaA

May 25, 2012

June 8, 2012

1. A. The division of property concluded on December 18, 2009 between the defendant and the non-party BB shall be revoked within the limit of 000 won.

B. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final to the day of complete payment.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 3, 2009, thisB sold to Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City 461 6,284 m2 m2 and 1/2 m2 m2 m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of the same 000 m2,132 m2 m2 in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City to KRW 000 of the contract amount under Article 17 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Incheon Metropolitan City on November 5, 2009.

B. On January 30, 2010, thisB submitted to the head of Ansan Tax Office an application for tax base return of transfer income tax calculated as KRW 000,000 for the transfer of the instant real estate, and an application for tax reduction and exemption of transfer income tax amount of KRW 000 under Article 72(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases

C. On April 9, 2010, the director of the Ansan Tax Office decided and notified the transfer income tax of 000 won to thisB by April 30, 2010 (hereinafter “the transfer income tax of this case”). The BB did not pay the said transfer income tax until the filing date of the instant lawsuit, and the sum of the income tax and additional dues is 00 won.

D. Meanwhile, as of December 2, 1996, the Defendant drafted a divorce agreement (a clause 2-2 of the agreed terms) with thisB and the following terms and conditions as of December 12, 2009, and authenticated as of December 18, 2009 No. 3331 of the Dong, etc. as of December 18, 2009, and filed a divorce report on March 26, 2010.

E. AB paid KRW 000 to the Defendant, such as division of property, consolation money, etc. on December 21, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 19, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 10-1, 2, and Eul evidence 10-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's main defense

On May 2010, the defendant must file a lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act within one year from the date when the creditor becomes aware of the grounds for revocation. B around May 25, 2010, the plaintiff requested to vindicate the user of the amount of the real estate in this case from the Ansan Tax Office, and on May 25, 2010, submitted a "written confirmation of the user of the transferred funds" to the defendant, and on June 18, 2010, the public official belonging to the Ansan Tax Office submitted a written request for tracking investigation of the person avoiding disposition on default, stating that the public official is presumed to have been suspected of evading disposition on default, and the plaintiff was not aware of the grounds for revocation of the lawsuit in this case since B prepared a written request for tracking investigation of the "written confirmation of the user of the transferred funds" on May 25, 2010 to 2010.

B. Determination

In light of the above facts, "the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause of cancellation" of the transfer proceeds, and "the date when the obligee becomes aware of the requirement of creditor's right of revocation," that is, the date when the obligee became aware of the fraudulent act, and that the obligee was aware of the cause of cancellation, the mere fact that the obligor was aware of the act of disposal of the property is insufficient, and that it is necessary to know the existence of specific fraudulent act, and that the obligor was aware of the objective facts of know, and that there was no other evidence to prove that the obligor was aware of the existence of the transfer proceeds in this case's fraudulent act, it is difficult to presume that the obligor was aware of the reason for cancellation. According to the above facts, it is necessary to verify the existence of the transfer proceeds in this case 00 won, and that there was no other specific evidence to prove the existence of the transfer proceeds in this case's fraudulent act, and that there was no other evidence to prove that the transfer proceeds were 00 won or more of the transfer proceeds in this case's fraudulent act.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

Although it is required that a claim protected by the obligee's right of revocation was created prior to the commission of the act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there is a legal relationship which is the basis of the formation of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future in the near future, and where it is difficult for the claim to be established because the probability is realized in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation. This legal principle applies to tax claims, and even in cases of tax claims, even if there is no disposition of imposition by the specific decision of correction, etc. at the time of the fraudulent act, there is a basic legal relationship about the occurrence of the claim

If the tax claim is established specifically through a series of procedures such as the actual decision of correction, and such tax claim can be the preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation. In principle, when the obligee exercises the obligee's right of revocation, the obligee's right of revocation can not be exercised in excess of its claim amount. In this case, the obligee's claim amount includes interest or delay damages incurred until the conclusion of fact-finding proceedings after the fraudulent act. Meanwhile, additional dues and increased additional dues provided for in Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act are the incidental tax imposed in the meaning of interest on unpaid portion if national taxes are not paid by the due date, and the amount naturally becomes final and conclusive by the provisions of Articles 21 and 22 of the same Act if the national taxes are not paid by the due date without the due date for determination of the taxpayer's right of revocation. Therefore, insofar as the transfer income tax claim is recognized as the preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation, the transfer income tax amount includes the additional tax and increased additional tax imposed by the time limit for entry into force of the court proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 20000Da37261, Mar. 237, 20, 20, 20160.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

1) Whether the debtor is insolvent

In full view of the facts that there is no dispute between the parties, and evidence Nos. 2-1, evidence Nos. 6, 7, and evidence Nos. 10-1 through 4, the whole purport of the pleadings, and as of December 18, 2009, the property division contract of this case was concluded, the positive property of this B at the time of December 18, 2009 is as follows, and it can be recognized that there was at least 265,00,000,000, not only the capital gains tax liability of this case against the plaintiff but also the obligation to the national bank for the plaintiff at least 00,000,000). Therefore, this is followed by the conclusion of the property division contract of this case.

2) Whether a fraudulent act was committed

A) Relevant legal principles

Property division according to divorce is a system with economic difficulty in settling the common property of both spouses through mutual cooperation, and it results in reducing the joint security for the general creditor by transferring a certain property to the spouse while divorced, barring any special circumstance to deem that such property division is excessive beyond a considerable degree pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, it is not the object of revocation by fraudulent act as it is not the object of property division, but it is the object of revocation by deeming it as a legitimate property division for a portion exceeding a considerable degree as it is beyond a reasonable degree (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da33258, Sept. 14, 2006). On the other hand, the current system of property division is not the subject of agreement between the couple and the spouse, and it is not the subject of common property division, but the amount of division by agreement between the couple and the spouse should be determined in principle, if it is not the subject of common property division, but the amount of division by agreement between the husband and wife is not the subject of property division.

B) Whether the division of property of this case exceeds the reasonableness of the division contract

In addition to the above evidence, active property subject to division on March 26, 2010, when the agreement between the defendant and B had been reached between the defendant and the defendant, and the transfer income tax of this case was borne with the transfer of the real property of this case, which is the joint property of the married couple, so the division of property is subject to division, and the considerable ratio of division of property is as follows: Gap evidence 2-1, 6 and 7, Eul evidence 3-1, and Eul evidence 4-1 and the whole purport of the argument in the above evidence 4 are known, and the main reason for the dissolution of marriage is that the defendant would be located in B, and the defendant would be to support the defendant's parents, and the real property of this case is the real property of this case, which is the real property of this case, 00 won or more after the division of the above property of this case into 00 won or more, and it is determined that the defendant's net property of this case is less than 000 won or less than 00% of the amount of the above property of this case's property.

c)Indivate

Therefore, the portion of the division contract of property in this case is deemed to constitute a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is the general creditor of the BB, and the intention of the BB, who is the debtor, is presumed to be also presumed.

(iii) the method and scope of restitution;

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s profit derived from the instant property division contract is KRW 000, and KRW 50% of the net property value of the instant case, which is a significant range of the instant property division contract, is KRW 00,000, and the part recognized as a fraudulent act among the instant property division contract, is more than KRW 50% of the net property value of the instant case among the profits earned from the instant property division contract. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s preserved claim is KRW 00,000, as seen earlier, the instant property division contract should be revoked within the scope of KRW 00, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of KRW 00 and KRW 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following the date this judgment became final to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for all reasons, and it is decided as per Disposition.