Appropriateness of the assertion that the presumption of fraudulent act is a subsequent purchaser in good faith

In light of the fact that the real estate continues to reside in the real estate in this case even after the real estate was transferred to the defendant in order and the financial data related thereto are not submitted, the defendant's good faith cannot be recognized

Article 31 of the National Tax Collection Act

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

A. The sales contract concluded on October 13, 2006 between the co-defendant of the first instance trial and ○○○○○○ and the co-defendant of the first instance trial is revoked.

B. As to the real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff:

(1) The number of co-defendants of the first instance court is the Busan District Court's Dong Branch of the District Court and the transfer registration of ownership completed under No. 85131 on October 19, 2006.

(2) The defendant Lee Jin-jin, as Busan District Court Branch, No. 42356 of Jun. 1, 2007, followed by the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant shall be dismissed.

1.Basics

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each of Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-6, Gap evidence 8-1-4, Gap evidence 10-1, and 10-2.

A. From February 23, 2004 to June 30, 2006, Park Sung-sung operated an adult amusement room under the trade name called '○○○○○dong 242-○○○○○○○○○○’. The head of the Busan District Tax Office, which was the Plaintiff’s head of the Busan District Tax Office, conducted a tax investigation on the above amusement room from January 12, 2007 to February 2, 2007, issued a notice of correction and notification of value-added tax as follows.

B.(1) On October 13, 2006, Park Jong-ok entered into a sales contract with the co-defendants of the first instance trial to sell the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") to ○○○○ by the co-defendants of the first instance trial (hereinafter referred to as the "instant sales contract"), and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on October 19, 2006 to ○○○○ Co-defendants of the first instance trial as the Busan District Court's Branch Branch No. 85131, Oct. 19, 2006.

(2) After that, the number of co-defendants in the first instance trial completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of ownership transfer of this case") with the Busan District Court No. 42356, Jun. 1, 2007, on the ground of sale on November 9, 2006.

C. On the other hand, Park Dong-dong, an active property at the time of the instant sales contract, did not have any property other than the instant real estate (the market price of KRW 88,00,000 per annum), 10 forest land of ○○○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, 10 forest land, and 10 m254 square meters per ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○○, 10-254 square meters per ○○, ○○, ○56,

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

First, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff has a tax claim on the Park Il-ok. Meanwhile, as a matter of principle, it is highly probable that claims protected by the obligee’s right of revocation are fraudulent act, and there exists a legal relationship that has already been based on the formation of the claim at the time of the fraudulent act, and that the claim should be established in the near future. In the near future, where a claim has been created by realizing the possibility thereof in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation. As can be seen from the above basic facts, even though there was no tax claim against the Plaintiff Park Il-ok at the time of the instant sales contract, there was a high probability that at that time, the obligation to pay value-added tax, which is the basis of the establishment of the above tax claim, was already established, and that the above tax claim was established in the near future, and as such, there was no few months thereafter, the above tax claim may become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation in relation to the instant sales contract.

(b) The establishment of fraudulent acts and intent to injure them;

As seen earlier, the instant sales contract further reduces the common security of creditors by selling the instant real estate, and thus, barring any special circumstance, constitutes an act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is a creditor, and furthermore, considering the circumstances at the time of the instant sales contract, etc. as seen earlier, Park Il-dae was aware that it would thereby prejudice the general creditor, and the Defendant’s bad faith, who is the subsequent purchaser, is presumed.

C. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant properly purchased the instant real estate from the number of co-defendants in the first instance trial. At that time, the Defendant did not know the existence of the said tax claim against the Plaintiff’s Park Jong-ok, and claimed that himself is a subsequent purchaser in good faith.

In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s good faith is insufficient to acknowledge and there is no other evidence to support the Defendant’s assertion that: (a) the ownership of the instant real estate was divorced from Park Jong-ok after the sales contract of this case; (b) the ownership of the instant real estate was transferred in order to Park Jong-ok and the Defendant continued to reside in the instant real estate even after the real estate was transferred in order to the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant was unable to submit all relevant financial data by asserting that the first instance co-defendants of the first instance court, at the time of the purchase of the instant real estate, paid the remainder after deducting the deposit and provisional seizure for the instant real estate from the purchase price; and (d) the Defendant paid the remainder after deducting the deposit and provisional seizure for the instant real estate from the purchase price.

(d) Cancellation and reinstatement;

Ultimately, the sales contract of this case must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of cancellation of the right to file a lawsuit in this case to the plaintiff as the restoration to original state.

3. Conclusion

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