Action for Revocation of Fraudulent Act by a judgment without pleadings

Judgment without holding any pleadings under Articles 208(3)1 and 257(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Article 208(3)1 of the Civil Procedure Act (a judgment without a pleading)

1. The contract of donation concluded on November 29, 2005 between the defendant and the non-party Cho Jong-il shall be revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration completed on November 30, 2005 by the receipt No. 26085 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claim;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings;

Article 208(3)1 of the Civil Procedure Act

Judges ○○○

Grounds of Claim

1.the formation of tax claims;

The non-party ○○○ has transferred ○○do ○○, 000 ○○-dong 000 dong, but did not report capital gains tax on October 5, 2005. Accordingly, the director of the tax office affiliated with the plaintiff notified KRW 18,508,520 by the deadline for payment on June 30, 2006, but the non-party ○○○○ did not pay until now.

The amount of the tax payable to the non-party ○○○ by the head of the competent tax office is at the risk of KRW 22,173,171 as of the filing date.

2. Fraudulent act;

On October 5, 2005, the non-party ○○○○ transferred ○○○○, 000 ○○○○, but did not file a report, and the transfer income tax was anticipated in advance to be notified, and the real estate indicated in the attached Table (hereinafter “the real estate”) was the only property of the Gwangju District Court, Gwangju District Court receipt No. 26085, which was 30 November 30, 2005, on the ground of donation by the Incheon Branch Branch Office of Busan District Court No. 26085, the ownership transfer registration was completed in his wife’s name.

3. The intention of an injury.

1) The intention of the non-party ○○’s death

The non-party ○○○ appears to have completed the ownership transfer registration based on the donation to Defendant △△△△ in order to anticipate that the real estate was transferred without filing a tax return, and that the tax amount would be notified in advance, and to be exempted from the disposition on default such as seizure, etc., and considering that the tax was in arrears, the non-party ○○○ was aware that the non-party ○○○ would have been able to harm the Plaintiff, a tax claim, at the

2) Non-party ○○’s insolvent

Nonparty ○○○ had no property other than the instant real property at the time of registering the ownership transfer of the instant real property to the Defendant, and thus, it is difficult to obtain satisfaction of a taxation claim.

4. Bad faith of the defendant

The defendant is the wife of the non-party ○○○, and the non-party ○ did not have any other property except the real estate in this case. Therefore, it should be viewed that the defendant knew of the fact that this act was a fraudulent act at the time of acquiring the ownership of the real estate in this case and of the intention of the non-party 1'

5. Conclusion;

In light of the above facts, the act of ownership transfer of the instant real estate by Nonparty ○○○ constitutes a fraudulent act committed while knowing that it would prejudice the obligee, and the Defendant also knew the fact. Thus, the Defendant sought revocation of the said donation contract, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the name of the Defendant, which was completed with respect to the instant real estate, as restitution to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the claim was filed to recover ownership in the name of

Real Estate Labeling

○○○-si ○○○○-ri 000 square meters prior to the 1395 square meters, one half of the total amount of 1395 square meters.