Appropriateness of the assertion that a bona fide beneficiary was a bona fide beneficiary who did not know the existence of tax claims at the time of sales

It is insufficient to recognize that the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary at the time of the sales contract because the defendant had a special relationship with the delinquent and the delinquent and the delinquent disposed of all active property.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant sold each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and Park Jong-tae on October 18, 2006 and cancelled the sales contract concluded on October 18, 2006, and the Defendant will implement the procedures for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership completed on October 25, 2006 by the Jeju District Court Seopo Office of Registry of Registry of Registry of Registry of Registry of Registry of 2006 to the Plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court is ".... the defendant's assertion and judgment" is the same as the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is cited by Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, in addition to the following parts, from the second to the fourth above the second to the second below of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

The defendant, who intends to sell each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each of the real estate of this case") rapidly due to the omission of financial conditions, entered into a sale and purchase contract with Park Jong-dae, a co-owner of each of the real estate of this case, on October 18, 2006, which was recommended by the defendant to purchase each of the real estate of this case, and paid the price to purchase it, and did not know the existence of the tax claim against Park Jong-ok at the time of the plaintiff's sale and purchase. Thus, he raised his defense as a bona fide beneficiary.

According to the evidence mentioned above and Eul evidence Nos. 6, 9,10, the defendant's mother, the non-party Kim ○, the defendant's mother, remitted 10,00,000 won out of the purchase price of each of the real estate of this case to Park Jong-ok on August 4, 1990, and the defendant purchased the shares from ○○ on March 1, 2002, and on January 6, 2004, ○○○○ was the co-owner of the same real estate. The defendant remitted 10,00,000 won out of the purchase price of each of the real estate of this case to ○○○○ on August 18, 2006, 206, 206, 26,62,540 won was paid as capital gains tax in 206.

However, as seen earlier, each of the instant real estate and the instant real estate as active property at the time of the instant sales contract was concluded with the Defendant on October 18, 2006, and there was No. 1450, 1451, 2103, 314, 1451, and the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence No. 11, and Eul evidence No. 11, and the whole purport of the pleadings, are acknowledged as follows. ① The Defendant, on November 9, 2006, failed to reach a lawsuit with the Defendant on October 18, 2006, and concluded a sales contract with the Defendant on October 25, 2006, and concluded a registration of ownership transfer with the Defendant on October 19, 2006, and it was difficult to recognize that the Defendant transferred the above apartment house to the non-party 1,000,0000,000 won of the instant land to the Busan District Court on June 28, 2007.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.