beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article
However, the following judgments are added to the grounds for appeal by the defendant.
2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. The Defendant’s assertion B filed a transfer income tax report on April 30, 2016 under the instant sales contract, and the Plaintiff completed the integrated personal tax investigation on B between May 2, 2016 and May 20, 2016. If so, the Plaintiff was aware of the Defendant’s fraudulent act and intent of deception on April 30, 2016, which is the filing date of the said report of transfer income tax, or on May 20, 2016, which is the date of the said tax investigation, at the latest, on May 20, 2016. Therefore, the instant lawsuit filed on November 10, 2017, which is one year after the said report, was unlawful, since the exclusion period was expired.
B. Determination 1) An action for revocation of a fraudulent act under Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act is the kind of action for revocation of a fraudulent act under Article 406 of the Civil Act, and there is no special provision that the exercise should be different from the provisions of the Civil Act. Thus, in the exercise of a creditor's right of revocation, the "date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause of revocation" refers to the date when the creditor becomes aware of the requirement of the creditor's right of revocation, i.e., the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor committed a fraudulent act while knowing that the creditor would prejudice the creditor. Thus, it is insufficient to say that the legal act is an act that causes damage to the creditor, that is, it is difficult to fully satisfy the claim due to the lack of joint security of the claim or the lack of joint security already insufficient, and further, it is necessary to know that the debtor had intent to cause harm to the debtor (see Supreme Court Decision 203Da12248, Dec. 12, 2003).