Suwon District Court Sungnam Branch-2012-Gohap-201089 ( October 15, 2015)

In light of the fact that the donee received gift tax and paid gift tax, the donor is not a donee with bad faith.

In light of the fact that the donee received gift tax and paid gift tax, the donor is not a donee with bad faith.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration

Seoul High Court 2015Na204685 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Gangwon-do Residents et al.

on December 22, 2016

on 19, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the selective claims added in the trial are all dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu and purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The judgment of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is revoked. With respect to the share of 335/660.7 on July 14, 2008 between the party to the contract of donation concluded on July 14, 2008 with respect to the relation to the share of 335/660.7% between the party to the contract and the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant"), the contract of donation concluded on June 17, 2010 on June 17, 2010 with respect to the share of 108/660.7 shares between the party to the contract and the party to the contract, the party to the contract of donation was revoked on June 17, 2010, each of which was entered into on June 17, 2010 with respect to the share of 335/60.7 shares in the real property in this case, the defendant was the Seoul Southern District Court of Law No. 335/60.720 each of the party to the above transfer of ownership.67148/6/607.7.7

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the judgment on the selective claims added in the trial is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for those added by Section 2 below. Thus, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ In the lower part of the second judgment of the first instance, “children are children” is amended to “children are children(hereinafter collectively referred to as “children”).”

○ The three pages of the decision of the first instance court shall be revised to the "Tax Office(hereinafter referred to as the "Tax Office") of 000 under the Plaintiff."

○ 6 pages 3 of the first instance judgment “2,589,96,450 won ( principal tax + KRW 2,429,640,210 + additional KRW 160,356,240)” is “2,429,640,640,210 won (i.e., final tax amount + KRW 1,452,05,146 + additional tax amount of KRW 580,802,058 + additional tax of KRW 396,83,006 + additional tax of KRW 396,83,006).” 2,589,96,450 won at the same bottom is amended respectively.

○ On three pages 5 of the first instance judgment, the phrase “Nos. 2, 5, 9, 11, 12, and 15” shall be read as “Nos. 2, 5, 9 through 12, and 15”, and the phrase “no. 00” in the same page shall be read as “no. 00”, respectively.

○ The first instance court's 7 pages 1, 2 of the first instance court's 7 pages 1, and 7 of the second instance court's 7 pages 1, and 2 of the second instance court's 500 million won each revised "50 million won" into "50 million won".

○ 7 pages 9 of the first instance court ruling is amended to “3 years”, “3 years and seven months (one year and seven months from the date on which the real estate in this case was donated to the Appointed Park 00, Kangb, and Kangc).”

2. Determination as to the selective claims added in the trial

A. The plaintiff's assertion

D. From July 2007, since the symptoms of dementia aggravated, each gift agreement entered into between Kangdd and the Defendants was null and void as a juristic act by a person without intention, and each transfer registration of ownership in the name of the Defendants on the instant real estate must be revoked. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of each transfer of ownership, which is null and void by subrogation, who is an insolvent person, with the claim for transfer income tax of this case as the right to be preserved.

B. Determination

According to the above evidence Nos. 6, 7 and 8, it is difficult to conclude that d'd' was a 2nd day of July 18, 2007, 00 medical center of 20 university, and that the overall concentration of care has been maintained at a normal level, but d's verbal and visual memory has been diagnosed as a d'hummatic obstacle of 2nd day of February 3, 2007. D'd's 2nd day of February 1, 2007. The 2nd day of September 3, 2007, which shows that d's signature was damaged by 0,0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and 2nd day of February 208, 2007.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is so decided, and all of the selective claims added in the plaintiff's appeal and the trial are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.