Sale of current real property of this case constitutes fraudulent act

In excess of debt, the delinquent taxpayer made a promise to sell and purchase the real estate of this case with the defendant, and completed the provisional registration of this case in the future of the defendant, thereby undermining the general creditor, and it is sufficiently recognized that the delinquent taxpayer was aware that he would prejudice the general creditor due to the above promise to sell and purchase, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

Gwangju District Court 2019Kadan51760 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

o○

October 18, 2019

1. The purchase and sale reservation entered into on October 25, 2017 between the Defendant and Kim○○ shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when this judgment is finalized to the day of complete payment.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

Establishment of preserved bonds.

A. On April 21, 2017, Kim○-○ transferred four parcels of land, including, but not limited to, ○○○○-do 408-8, ○○○-do ○○○○, Jeonnam-si, ○○○-si, 54-5, risan 56-2, 57-6, and risan 57-6, which he/she owns, to ○○○, and reported capital gains tax on June 30 of the same year, and filed a revised report on August 3, 2017.

B. As Kim○-○ did not pay the above capital gains tax, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff notified Kim○-○ of the payment deadline on September 30, 2017, and notified the capital gains tax ○○○○○ upon setting the payment deadline for the under-reported portion as the payment deadline on January 31, 2018, and notified the additional capital gains tax ○○○○○.

C. Nevertheless, Kim Do-hee did not pay capital gains tax until the date of the closing of argument, and as of October 25, 2017, an additional tax amount of 00 won was generated (total amount of 00 won).

Preparation of Notarial Deed

D. On June 20, 2005, the Defendant lent ○○○○, a branch office Kim○, to ○○ on the loan. On October 5, 2011, Kim○○, at the Defendant’s request, prepared a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement, stating that “○○, a notary public borrowed ○○ from the Defendant on June 20, 2005, shall pay 25% interest per annum, and shall pay 30% interest per annum at delay.”

E. On May 24, 1999, ○○ District Court ○○○○ registry on the ground of the pre-sale agreement as of May 24, 199, ○○○○○○○○○○ on the ground of the pre-sale agreement with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The registration of the right to claim ownership transfer was completed on May 26, 199 on May 26, 199.

F. On October 25, 2017, Kim○-○ had a collateral registration completed on the instant real estate in excess of the debt, and each of the ○○ District Court’s ○○○ Registry on October 27, 2017, under the name of the Defendant, completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on the ground of a pre-sale agreement (hereinafter referred to as “the instant provisional registration”).

G. In other words, the Defendant received KRW 00 from ○○○ who was a legal wife of Kimhee-do regarding the instant real estate, and received the down payment KRW 00,00,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the instant provisional registration as of December 19, 2017 by ○○ District Court ○○○○○ registry office on the ground of sale and purchase as of December 18, 2017, and received the said KRW 00 out of part of intermediate payment.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, 3-2, Gap evidence 4 through 6, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 11-1 through 4, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 4-1 through 4, Eul evidence 4-1 through 5-3, Eul evidence 5-1 through 5-3, witness Kim ○'s testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

According to the above facts, on October 25, 2017, Kim○-○ concluded a promise to sell and purchase the instant real estate with the Defendant in excess of debt, and completed the provisional registration of this case on October 25, 2017 in the future of the Defendant, thereby doing a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditor. Kim○-○ was sufficiently recognized to have been aware that the said promise to sell and purchase the said real estate would prejudice the general creditor, and the Defendant’s bad faith, which is the beneficiary, is presumed. Accordingly, the purchase and sale promise concluded on October 25, 2017 between the Defendant and Kim○-○ shall be revoked as a fraudulent act.

As to the method of restitution, the Defendant appears to have become unable to return the original property by completing the principal registration on the basis of the provisional registration of this case, so the Defendant is obligated to pay compensation for value at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

The defendant asserts that around April 2017, 2017, ○○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○-do, ○○, 54-5, risan, 56-2, and 57-6, etc. sold 4 lots of land to ○○○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○, ○○, ○, ○○, and ○○-do, and ○, ○○, which did not exceed six months thereafter. However, according to the testimony of ○, ○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○, ○○, who sold the said real estate to ○○○, but did not actually receive the payment, and the defendant's above assertion

The Defendant asserts to the effect that, as the genuine obligee of ○○○, the pre-contract for sale and purchase on October 25, 2017 cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act, and that the Defendant was bona fide. The Defendant asserted to the effect that the Defendant: (a) lent KRW ○○ to ○○, a branch office Kim○ on June 20, 2005; and (b) obtained a notarial deed of a monetary loan contract from Kim○ on October 5, 201; (c) as seen above, it constitutes a fraudulent act, the mere fact that the pre-contract for sale and purchase on October 25, 201 cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act; and (d) the Defendant’s bad faith, a beneficiary, was presumed to have been the good faith, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.