Whether a fraudulent act is established where a delinquent taxpayer renounces his/her inheritance after the consultation on inherited property has been divided.

Even if a delinquent taxpayer reported a renunciation of inheritance after a division with co-inheritors on inherited property, if the agreement does not recognize the right of inherited property to the renouncer on the premise of the renunciation of inheritance, the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed on the ground that the report of renunciation

2013 Ghana 153938 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

1. YellowA 2. Chapter B

October 30, 2013

November 20, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The agreement between Defendant YellowA and PCC on the share of inheritance on July 1, 201 with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “real estate No. 1”) shall be revoked within the limit of KRW OO. Defendant YellowA shall pay to the Plaintiff an amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the date this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment. Defendant YellowB and the HeadCC shall pay to the Plaintiff an amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum. Within the limit of KRW OOB agreed on July 1, 2011 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the real estate No. 2”) within the limit of KRW 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment. Defendant YoungB shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the annual rate of

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 30, 201, the head of the Cheongju District Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s jurisdiction determined the payment deadline of capital gains tax OOOO as of April 30, 201 and notified each of the payment deadline of capital gains tax OOOO on December 31, 201.

B. As DuD died on July 1, 201, on July 201, co-inheritors, including Defendant YellowA and Defendant 2B, and headCC, who are his wife, concluded an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant division agreement”) with the following purport: (a) on July 29, 201, the first real estate, the inherited property of Defendant YellowA; (b) on the second real estate, the Defendant headBB; and (c) on the 38,876 square meters of forest land in OOOOOO, the OOOOO, and the 1/4 equity shares; and (b) on the 1/4 equity shares of the headE, the agreement on the division of inherited property was concluded (hereinafter “instant division agreement”).

C. Accordingly, on September 1, 2011, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 1, 201 in the future of Defendant YellowA for the first real estate, and on July 1, 201 for the second real estate, in the future of Defendant YellowB for the second real estate, respectively.

D. On August 19, 2011, Cheongju District Court 2011Jaly 647, Cheongju District Court reported the renunciation of inheritance to DoD, and the above report was accepted on October 6, 2011.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 2-1 to 5, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the headCC had the obligation to pay capital gains tax to the Plaintiff, it concluded the instant division consultation with the co-inheritors including the Defendants on the part of giving up their share in the first and second real estate. The instant division agreement constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, which is the creditor. As the Defendants’ future cancellation of the right to collateral security already established after the registration of ownership transfer was completed, making it impossible to return original property impossible, Defendant YellowA is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the total value of the value of the headCC shares among the first real estate, and Defendant YellowA is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the total value of the value of the headCC shares among the second real estate, and the total value of the headCC shares among the second real estate.

B. Determination

1) A renunciation of inheritance has its effect retroactively from the time the inheritance commenced (Article 1042 of the Civil Act), and the renouncer is deemed to have never been an inheritor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2003Ma988, Aug. 11, 2003). Therefore, the same shall apply where a report on renunciation of inheritance was not yet filed or a report on division of inheritance was not accepted by the court, and the report on the renunciation of inheritance was duly accepted after the agreement on the division of inherited property between the co-inheritors, other than the renouncer, and the effect of the renunciation of inheritance becomes effective retroactively because the report on the renunciation of inheritance was made legally after the agreement on the division of inherited property, and the agreement was made by all the qualified co-inheritors. This shall be deemed to be valid retroactively in cases where the agreement was made even if the renouncer participated in the agreement on the division of inherited property and became a party thereto,

On the other hand, the renunciation of inheritance does not affect the property of the person who renounced, but the act of extinguishing the status of the inheritor itself as seen earlier, and the act of disposing of the property law.

The waiver of inheritance does not mean as above. Rather, it has the nature of “a personal determination made based on the overall determination of the relationship with the heir, including the decedent or subordinated heir, as a whole.” As to such act, even though an inheritor is insolvent, it does not readily recognize the revocation of a fraudulent act by the obligee’s fraudulent act that may result in the obligee’s refusal of inheritance, on the ground that the inheritor is in insolvent. Moreover, inheritance is comprehensively succeeded to the entire property, including all property rights and obligations and burdens at the time of the decedent’s death, as a whole, and many related persons have interests. As such, if there is an application of the obligee’s right of revocation on the legal act that constitutes a fraudulent act based on the obligee’s declaration of renunciation of inheritance, the legal relationship surrounding inheritance cannot be seen as being complicated from the point of view of legal treatment to the obligee’s right of revocation on the inheritance (see Article 201 of the Civil Act). In addition, even if the heir’s property becomes more than the heir’s 16th judgment on the inheritance, it cannot be seen that the heir’s property becomes more than the heir’s right of inheritance.

Even if CC participated in the division agreement in this case and became a party, its contents do not recognize its rights to inherited property on the premise that CC has renounced its succession. As seen earlier, as long as the effect of the renunciation of succession has been legally caused by the filing of the subsequent report on renunciation of succession, it should be viewed as the same as long as CC has accepted the subsequent report on renunciation of succession.

Furthermore, in light of the above legal principles, waiver of inheritance cannot be subject to revocation of fraudulent act, so the plaintiff's assertion of revocation of fraudulent act is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.