It is reasonable to deem that the Defendant did not know that the act of cash donation in this case was harmful to the Plaintiff, a creditor.

The defendant filed a voluntary report on capital gains tax on behalf of his mother, paid the gift tax following cash donation preferentially, received a donation from her mother by means of an easy account transfer account transfer, provided facilities necessary for welfare projects with the donation, and supported her mother-child, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the defendant did not know that the act of cash donation in this case was harmful to the plaintiff, which is the creditor.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2013 Gohap 100746 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Park AA

October 23, 2013

November 8, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The contract on cash donation between the Defendant and Nonparty B on November 19, 2012 shall be revoked within the limit of KRW OO. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this decision became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 24, 2012, Nonparty B sold O-dong 636-1 and 6 parcels of real estate to OO-OO(hereinafter “the above sales contract”).

B. Although the Plaintiff-affiliated tax office imposed OOOO on the last B as of March 31, 2013 following the sale and purchase set forth in paragraph (a) on the capital gains tax accrued on March 31, 2013, the largest BB did not pay the capital gains tax as set forth in paragraph (b) and as a result, the capital gains tax of OOOO is currently in arrears.

C. On the other hand, on November 19, 2012, LB made a donation in cash to the Defendant (hereinafter “the donation contract”). At that time, LB had active property of the total amount of the capital gains tax amount in arrears calculated by November 19, 2012, including the land located at OO-dong 569-1, the deposit equivalent to the total amount of the OO-1 located at the market price, the deposit equivalent to the 569-1 located at the same time as the OO-1 located at the same time as the 569-1 located at the market price, the deposit amount of the OO-O-1 located at the same time as the OO-1 located at the same time, and the above O-O-O-1 located at the same time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the cause of claim

(i)the existence of preserved claims;

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle, it is highly probable that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that serve as the basis for the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future. In cases where a claim has been created by realizing the probability in the near future, such claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da68084, Jan. 13, 201).

On September 30, 2012, the date on which the obligation to pay capital gains tax under the instant sales contract was established, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, is the date of establishing the obligation to pay capital gains tax under the instant sales contract. As such, it is highly probable that a tax claim based on the instant gift was created in the near future because the instant gift contract was already established on November 19, 201 of the same year, and thus, there was a high probability that the relevant tax claim may accrue in the near future. Accordingly, since the Plaintiff actually determined and notified the transfer income tax on March 31, 2013 to the leastB as the due date for payment, and thus, the said tax claim becomes the preserved claim of the obligee’s right to revoke.

2) The establishment of fraudulent act and the intention of deceptioning

According to the above facts, although the maximum BB's active property OOOO was exceeded the maximum amount of OOO of the passive property at the time of the instant donation contract, it is reasonable to view that the transfer of OOOOO to the Defendant under the above donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, which is the tax claim, and that the most BB knew that the said transfer was prejudicial to other general creditors at the time. As a result, it is presumed that the Defendant, the beneficiary, was also aware of the fact that the said transfer was prejudicial to other general creditors.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff may exercise the right of revocation against the Defendant, the beneficiary, and seek restitution.

B. As to the defendant's defense

As to this, the defendant defenses that the maximum BB had not known that it would prejudice the plaintiff as the creditor at the time of the donation contract of this case, and thus, there was no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the whole purport of the arguments as a whole. In other words, ① The non-party CC, a licensed real estate agent, stated that the maximum BB and the defendant were subject to capital gains tax at the time of selling the real estate of 636-1 and 6 parcels with the defendant's help, the capital gains tax was imposed at the maximum B and the defendant. ② However, unlike the above mentioned above mentioned by HanCC, the capital gains tax imposed on the actual maximum B was imposed at the time of the voluntary report on behalf of the maximum BB, but the defendant was subject to the gift tax imposed on the cash donation from the least B, which was relatively less than the amount of the gift tax imposed on the plaintiff 1, the defendant was unable to receive the gift tax from the maximum amount of the donation of this case, ③ it was difficult for the defendant to receive the cash transfer.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.