The act of transferring the apartment of this case to the defendant under excess of debt constitutes a fraudulent act unless there are other special circumstances.

The sales contract of this case is wholly revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act and its restitution accordingly, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case to the plaintiff.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

Suwon District Court of Suwon District 2013Kadan208097 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

IsaA

March 11, 2014

April 8, 2014

1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. On December 8, 2011, the sales contract concluded on December 8, 201 between the Defendant and TradeB was revoked, and B. B. The Defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration that was completed under the receipt of No. 7965, Dec. 9, 201 by Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court, Sungnam-nam Branch, Gwangju Branch Office, Gwangju Branch Office of Registration of

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

(a) Details of the first taxation of capital gains tax;

(1) NoB, on October 7, 2004, owned by it, ○○○○○-dong 21-13 gas station site.

The building of 17m2 and the building of gas stations on the ground of 130-14m2 and the building of 17m2 and the building of gas stations on the ground of the same 843m2, Gu, ○○, Dong, 130-14m2, sold to ○○, Inc. as sales price of 00 billion won, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 3, 2005, but did not report or pay the transfer income tax on the transaction (hereinafter “the transfer income tax”).

(2) The head of ○○ Tax Office shall calculate the transfer income tax of this case according to the standard market price, not the actual transaction.

On January 3, 2011, on the premise that the transfer income tax of this case was determined as ○○○, and notified the NoB to pay it by January 31, 201, and the NoB paid the full amount on January 26, 2011, within the payment deadline.

(b) Particulars of correction of capital gains tax;

(1) From November 15, 2011 to December 2, 2011 with respect to ○○ Tax Office’s ○○ Tax Office

As a result of conducting a joint audit, the transfer income tax of this case may cause speculation at the time of the transaction subject to the taxation.

capital gains pursuant to actual transaction price, other than the standard market price, following the sale and purchase of real estate in the designated place;

Even though the tax should be assessed, the head of ○○ Tax Office shall calculate the transfer income tax of this case according to the standard market price.

On December 8, 2011, the director of the regional tax office of ○○○ (the director of the regional tax office) has made a decision and notification to the Trade UnionB. The director of the regional tax office of ○○ (the director of the regional tax office) again calculates the transfer income tax of this case according to the actual

The government ordered the disposition of excessive collection.

(2) On December 8, 201, 201, the head of ○○ Tax Office re-calculated the transfer income tax of the instant case according to the actual transaction price.

Then, on January 6, 2012, the Labor Center notified the head of ○ Tax Office having jurisdiction over the place of residence at the time of the Labor Center.

(3) On January 26, 2012, the head of the ○○ Tax Office notified the Trade UnionB of pre-announcement of taxation, and on March 2, 2012.

While revising the transfer income tax of this case as the ○○ source and notifying the ○○○ source other than the already paid tax amount ○○ source (hereinafter “the revised portion of the transfer income tax of this case”) to pay it by March 31, 2012, the NA did not pay it until now.

(c) Disposition by TradeB;

(1) On March 28, 2011, NoB had the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) between Gab and Parkb○.

The apartment sales contract with the purchase price of KRW 00,000 was concluded with respect to the apartment.

J. On March 31, 2011, after completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the apartment in this case.

The right to collateral security was established with respect to the instant real estate to ○○○○○○○, a maximum debt amount of KRW 00,000,000,000, and was loaned from ○○ Bank to ○○, Inc., and paid to ○○,000,000,000

(2) On December 8, 2011, the Defendant, a member of the Trade Union (the wife of the Trade Union, the head of the Trade Union, the Party of the Trade Union, the Party of the Trade Union, the Party of the Trade Union, the Party of the Party

The sales contract for the apartment of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case") was entered into between the parties.

On December 9, 2011, following the seal, the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of ownership transfer of this case") was completed on December 9, 201, and on December 15, 2011, the collateral security part against ○ Bank Co., Ltd. of NowonB on ○○ Bank

The obligation was accepted.

(3) At the time of the instant sales contract, TradeB owned other property than the instant apartment.

did not exist.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 through 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1,8

each entry of 10 evidence, testimony of witness Kim ○-○ and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's argument

The Plaintiff transferred the ownership of the instant apartment from NoB to the Defendant on December 9, 2011.

At the latest, on March 31, 2012, the due date for the correction of the capital gains tax of this case, the property of the Trade UnionB.

In light of the fact that there was a cause for cancellation of the contract of this case after investigating the status of the contract of this case

The instant lawsuit filed on June 21, 2013, which was later than the lapse of the year, is unlawful.

B. Determination

In the exercise of creditor's right of revocation, "the date on which the creditor becomes aware of the cause of revocation", which is the starting point for exclusion period

creditor, in other words, knowing that the debtor would prejudice the creditor.

Since it means the date on which the debtor becomes aware of his fraudulent act, it merely means the date on which the debtor disposes of the property.

The fact that the juristic act was committed is not sufficient to support the creditor, and the juristic act is prejudicial to the creditor.

joint security of claims, or any deficiency or shortage of claims, by means of such act;

A claim may not be repaid in full due to the lack of security, and further a claim may not be repaid in full.

It should also be known that he/she had the intent to deception (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da2011384, Jan. 12, 2012). However, it is insufficient to recognize that the result of the testimony of a witness Kim ○ or the fact inquiry with respect to the National Tax Service by the witness Kim ○ or the court of this case alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was aware of the aforementioned circumstances before June 21, 2012, which was one year before June 21, 2013, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, the Defendant’s prior defense on the merits is difficult to accept.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

(1) According to the facts found above, the claim for the corrected portion of the transfer income tax of this case is confirmed.

The decision and notification are made on March 2, 2012, but the sales contract subject to taxation is concluded on October 7, 2004.

In light of the fact that the implementation of the instant transfer income tax was completed on March 3, 2005, and the comprehensive audit of the ○○ Tax Office’s ○○○ Tax Office had already been revealed at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and the fact that the transfer income tax of this case was erroneously calculated based on the standard market price, not the actual transaction, was highly probable as to the establishment of the claim for correction of the transfer income tax of this case at the time of the instant sales contract and the creation of the claim in the future. Moreover, since the ○○ Tax Office decided and notified the correction of the transfer income tax of this case on March 2, 2012, and did not object to the NoBB, the relevant probability was realized and the claim was actually created. Accordingly, the claim for correction of the transfer income tax of this case becomes the obligee’s right of revocation on the instant sales contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da76426, Feb. 23, 2012).

(2) As to this, the Defendant imposed tax on the corrected portion of the transfer income tax of this case on good faith.

The claim for correction of the transfer income tax of this case is null and void in violation of the principle or the principle of prohibition of inconsistency.

The obligee asserts that the obligee's right of revocation cannot be a preserved claim.

However, the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of trust protection shall apply to tax authorities' actions.

to make an average payment of trust granted by the tax authority through a public statement, opinion statement, etc.

It should be reasonable and reasonable to ensure that tax payers have reasonable and reasonable expectations (Supreme Court Decision 2013.

12. 26. See, 2011Du5940, etc.) However, as the Defendant’s assertion, Kim○-○, who was in charge of the first taxation of the transfer income tax of this case, impose additional transfer income tax on TradeB.

Even if it was said that it would be no longer a public check that it would be trusted to the Trade UnionB.

In addition, taxation on the correction of the transfer income tax of this case is difficult to be considered as piracy.

Any of the main causes of concern shall be the Trade UnionB to report the capital gains tax of this case originally.

This is because the taxation on the revised portion of the transfer income tax of this case was not made at all.

This part of the defendant's assertion does not violate the principle of good faith or the principle of prohibition of inconsistency.

It is difficult to accept.

B. Whether the fraudulent act was established

(1) According to the facts found above, the apartment of this case, the sole property of TradeB, is the defendant.

In the absence of special circumstances, it is easy to sell them and change them into money which is easily consumed.

In such a case, the intention of the Trade UnionB is presumed to be the intention of the Trade Union (Supreme Court Decision 9Da2515 Decided April 9, 199).

Supreme Court Decision 200Da41875 Decided April 24, 2001, etc.

(2) As to this, the Defendant shall first and continuously remain insolvent after March 13, 2006 by Trade UnionB.

Since there was a temporary acquisition of the ownership of the apartment of this case, the ownership was transferred to the defendant again.

(1) If there is a lack of joint security of claims or a lack of such security, a joint security

The sales contract of this case cannot be deemed to have become a fraudulent act because it cannot be deemed to have been more deficient than one story.

The argument is asserted.

However, whether the debtor's insolvency in a revocation suit is at the time of the fraudulent act, i.e., this death

As at the time of conclusion of a sales contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da64792, Jan. 12, 2012). This part of the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept.

(3) Next, the Defendant: (a) the instant sales contract title trust the instant apartment to TradeB.

purchase of the apartment of this case, which was intended to recover its name or lent to TradeB.

It constitutes a fraudulent act to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the obligation to be repaid.

The assertion asserts, however, that there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a title trust agreement between the Defendant and the LaborB solely on the basis of the statements in the evidence Nos. 2, 5 through 7, 11, and 14, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was a title trust agreement between the Defendant and the LaborB. If there was a title trust agreement, the Defendant asserts that the laborB entered into a sales contract with ParkB as a party and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the laborB, which constitutes a so-called “title trust.” In such a case, the Defendant is the burden of proving that the seller is in bad faith, which is the seller, has the burden of proving that the seller is the seller, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Ultimately, the Housing in this case is the obligation to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase fund received from the Defendant, and thus, it is merely the obligation to compensate for the general creditors’ joint property offered to the laborB and the Defendant against the laborB.

Therefore, the act of transferring the apartment of this case to the defendant under the debt excess by TradeB is different.

Unless special circumstances exist, a fraudulent act constitutes a fraudulent act (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74874 Decided September 25, 2008)

see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

Furthermore, even if the defendant lent the purchase fund of this case to the Trade UnionB,

the Defendant, only one of several creditors, shall be subject to the

The act of transferring the apartment of this case, not with the original purpose of the debt, with respect to the act of transferring the apartment of this case

In principle, unlike the case where the principal debt is repaid to a certain creditor, the other, in principle,

A fraudulent act is committed in relation to creditors (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da28045 Decided October 13, 2011).

see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

Therefore, it is difficult to accept this part of the Defendant’s assertion from a different premise.

(3) Lastly, the Defendant shall pay the full amount of the transfer income tax of this case which the TradeB first notified.

(1) The sales of this case without knowledge of the fact that the transfer income tax of this case was paid with the corrected claim

Since the contract was concluded, the employer asserts that the employer has no intention to know.

However, the so-called that the obligor cannot prejudice the obligee, which is a subjective requirement of the obligee's right of revocation.

debtor's bad faith, i.e., the debtor's act of disposing of the debtor's property, whose assets are reduced;

In short, there is a lack of joint security or a lack of joint security.

to recognize that the creditor is unable to fully satisfy the creditor's claims;

such recognition, if any, shall be sufficient to have a relationship with the general creditor.

It is not necessary to recognize that it would prejudice the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da57320, May 12, 1998). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is difficult to accept solely on the sole basis of the circumstance alleged by the Defendant, such as the Defendant, is insufficient to reverse the presumption of intention to commit suicide in the Nowon, and there is no other counter-proof.

C. Whether the defendant acted in good faith

(1) The defendant's argument

The Defendant did not know the fact that TradeB was liable to pay the amount of the capital gains tax of this case.

the purchase of the apartment of this case in the name of NoB, but again according to the sales contract of this case.

Since the registration of transfer of ownership was transferred, the defendant is the fraudulent act of this case.

was known to the court that it was not known.

(2) Determination

Since the beneficiary's bad faith in a revocation suit is presumed to be a beneficiary, the beneficiary shall be subject to its responsibility.

In order to be exempted, one is responsible for proving his/her good faith (Supreme Court Decision 9Da2515 delivered on April 9, 199);

Supreme Court Decision 200Da41875 Decided April 24, 2001, etc.). However, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the defendant was satisfy of NowonB, the auditor of the transfer income tax of this case was under process at the time of the decision of correction by the head of ○○ Tax Office, and the defendant was the person that the sales contract of this case was not based on a normal transaction.

The defendant purchased the apartment of this case in the name of Trade UnionB to receive subscription under the husband's name.

at the time of no change in the circumstances, the action is brought under the name of the defendant of the Gu.

In full view of the fact that there is no reason to recover the right of retention, the Trade UnionB does not have the capital gains tax.

payment shall be made before the defendant's marriage, or the NoBB shall reside in a foreign country until December 2010.

It is insufficient to reverse the presumption of bad faith solely on the basis of the circumstance alleged by the Defendant, etc., and there is no other counter-proof. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept.

(d) Methods of reinstatement;

(1) According to the facts of the above recognition, the sales contract of this case is void unless there are other special circumstances.

The Defendant’s restoration to its original state is the Plaintiff’s act of this case.

There is an obligation to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer registration.

(2) As to this, the defendant has established the right to collateral security like the apartment of this case.

Only the remainder other than the secured debt of the right to collateral security from the value of real property shall be a general creditor.

Since it is offered as a joint security, it is only a fraudulent act, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept the plaintiff's request.

I argue that it would not be possible to do so.

However, in a case where a legal act on a given real property constitutes a fraudulent act, in principle:

to cancel the fraudulent act and order the restoration of the real estate itself, such as the cancellation of the transfer of ownership registration.

, however, if a fraudulent act is revoked and order the recovery of the real estate itself, the first date.

order the recovery to the portion that was not a joint security of the creditors and that was not a joint security of the

If the result is contrary to the deliberation, the value of the real estate shall not be the joint security.

Revocation of fraudulent act within the extent of the balance remaining after deducting the value of the portion

It is reasonable to order compensation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da28819, 28826, Feb. 25, 2010).

However, in the instant case where the right to collateral security had been established at the time of the fraudulent act was not cancelled:

Ownership of a state bearing a burden on the right to collateral security, even if a fraudulent act is revoked and the return of its originals is ordered;

Recovery, the portion which was not originally owned by the general creditors as a joint security shall be recovered.

Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion from a different premise is acceptable.

It is difficult to do so.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons of the judgment as per Disposition.