A. Whether a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act under Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act shall be filed within the period of filing a lawsuit under Article 406(2) of the Civil Act (affirmative)

B. Whether the exclusion period is applicable in filing a lawsuit for provisional registration made by false representation and for revocation of a fraudulent act under Paragraph A above with respect to principal registration (affirmative)

C. The act of fraudulent act and the exclusion period under Paragraph A above, which is subject to the revocation of the principal registration upon the completion of the provisional registration on the property owned by the defaulted taxpayer

A. An action for revocation of a fraudulent act under Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 36 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is a kind of action for revocation of a fraudulent act under Article 406 of the Civil Act. Since there is no special provision that should be different from the provision of the Civil Act in its exercise, it shall be filed within the period for filing a lawsuit under Article 406(2) of the Civil Act.

B. Even if a provisional registration made for real estate owned by a delinquent taxpayer and the principal registration was made by false indication without any cause, it cannot be said that the exclusion period is exempted in filing a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act under the above Section A on the ground that there is such cause.

C. Whether a provisional registration is a provisional registration for the purpose of security of claims, whether a provisional registration is a provisional registration for security of claims based on a sale promise, or a provisional registration is made with respect to real estate owned by a delinquent taxpayer, and if the principal registration is made after the principal registration, the legal act based on the provisional registration and the legal act based on the principal registration are obviously different for reasons, the legal act based on the provisional registration shall be prohibited, and the legal act based on the principal registration shall not be deemed to be a fraudulent act under the above “A” which is subject

(b)Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 36 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Article 406 of the Civil Code);

B. Supreme Court Decision 74Da334 delivered on February 10, 1975 (Gong1975, 8361) 84Meu68 delivered on July 24, 1984 (Gong1984, 1478)

Korea

Port of Operation

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na33430 delivered on March 13, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the ground of appeal by the plaintiff performer

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 36(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are clear that a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act under Article 406 of the Civil Act is a kind of lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act under Article 406 of the same Act, and there is no special provision that should be different from the provisions of the Civil Act in its exercise (Article 61 of the Local Tax Act and Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act expressly stipulate that the above lawsuit shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Act and the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act should be filed within the

According to the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, when the plaintiff notified the general income tax on June 19, 1987 for the cancellation of the above purchase and sale contract and the provisional registration on June 23, 1987, the provisional registration was made in the name of the defendant on the ground of the same purchase and sale reservation, and on September 24, 1987, the plaintiff seized the real estate as a disposition on default on the above taxes. On April 20, 1989, the principal registration on the provisional registration on April 23, 1989, which was based on the above provisional registration, was completed the ownership transfer registration under the name of the defendant on the ground of the cancellation of the above sale and sale contract and the provisional registration as well as the cancellation of the principal registration on the non-party's request for the cancellation of the above provisional registration and the provisional registration, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as being unlawful by misapprehending the legal principles as to the plaintiff's claim for exclusion of the above provisional registration on the ground that the above provisional registration was not applied.

In addition, if a provisional registration is made, whether a provisional registration is a provisional registration for security for a claim based on a sale promise, or a provisional registration is made, and then the principal registration is made, the legal act that made the provisional registration and the legal act that made the principal registration is obviously different from the case where it is obviously different from the case where the principal registration is made, the legal act that made the provisional registration shall not be deemed to be a fraudulent act that only the principal registration is subject to cancellation, so the period of exclusion shall not be deemed to

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho