The act of repaying the instant money to the Defendant in excess of the debt is fraudulent act.

The Defendant did not submit other financial data to regard the loan claims different from the loan claims asserted by the Defendant, and the remittance amount is related to the repayment of the instant case, and the delinquent taxpayer paid the instant repayment only to the Defendant with no tax payment capacity or intent, and the Defendant, who was the mother, was aware that the delinquent taxpayer was not able to repay the instant repayment due to excess of the debt when the instant repayment was made, in collusion, with the intent of doing so.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

2016 Ghana 33182 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AA

August 31, 2017

October 12, 2017

1. BB’s act of repayment to the Defendant on January 2, 2014 is revoked.

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff ○○○○○ and the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

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

Cheong-gu Office

BB and the Defendant cancel the contract of donation of ○○○○○○○○○, which entered into on January 2, 2014. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment became final and conclusive to the day when the full payment is complete.

1. Facts of recognition;

(1) On September 20, 2012, BB sold ○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○, and ○○○○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, and ○○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○, ○○, ○, ○○, and ○, ○, ○, ○, ○, ○, and ○, ○, ○, ○,

D. In addition, on November 19, 2013, BB sold a building of ○○○○○○○○○○○, a building of ○○○○○○○○○, a building of ○○○○○○○○○○○, and a building of ○○○○○○○, a building of ○○○○○○○○○, and a building of ○○○○○○○, a building of ○○○○○○○○, (hereinafter referred to as “second real estate”), which

Secondly, the director of the tax office of ○○○ under the Plaintiff notified BB of the pre-announcement of capital gains tax on November 26, 2013 in relation to the transfer of 1 real estate, and notified the payment of ○○○○○○○○○○○○ on January 8, 2014 by January 31, 2014. ② In relation to the transfer of 2 real estate, the Plaintiff notified the payment of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on January 2, 2015. However, BB did not pay each of the above capital gains tax.

x. BB received the remainder of the purchase price of the second real estate from the ○○○○○○○○ on January 2, 2014, and immediately transferred the purchase price of the second real estate to ○○○○○○○○, a creditor, from BB’s female and creditor, and later, BB transferred the money to the Defendant, a mother of BB, ○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “the instant remittance act”), and the deposit account in the name of BB, ○○○○ was left.

(v) At the time of the instant remittance, BB did not have any other property except the sales balance received from ○○○○○○○. As seen below, BB was liable to the Plaintiff for the total amount of capital gains tax on ○○○○○○○○○○○○, and thereafter, BB had only the deposit claim of ○○○○, inasmuch as the instant remittance remains.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 2-1 to 3, Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 5-1, 2, Evidence No. 6, Evidence No. 7-1 to 5, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

The remittance of this case is a fraudulent act by which BB donated ○○○○○○○ to the Defendant, and thus, it should be revoked inasmuch as BB was in excess of its obligation due to the donation.

Even if the remittance of this case is not a donation to the defendant of BB, it shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, since the defendant in collusion with BB and the defendant have the intent to prejudice other creditors.

B. Defendant

The remittance of this case does not exist in the gift contract claiming that BB paid an existing loan obligation to the Defendant, and there is no agreement between BB and the Defendant, and there was no collusion between BB and the Defendant as repayment based on the principal of the obligation.

3. Determination on the establishment of the preserved claim

A. In principle, it is required that a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be deemed a fraudulent act. However, at the time of such fraudulent act, there is a high probability that the legal relationship, which is the basis of the establishment of the claim, has already occurred, and that the claim has been established in the near future in the near future. In a case where a claim has been established by realizing the probability in the near future, such claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da68084, Jan. 13, 201

B. According to the above facts, around January 2, 2014, at the time of the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act, the tax claim against BB was established in relation to the transfer of the first real estate. While the second real estate did not actually generate the Plaintiff’s tax claim against BB, the sales contract was concluded on November 19, 2013 between the Plaintiff and ○○○○○, a legal relation that is the basis of the occurrence of the tax claim, and the sales balance was paid on January 2, 2014, and thus, the Plaintiff’s tax claim against BB may be subject to the obligee’s right of revocation. Thus, the Plaintiff’s tax claim against BB may be subject to the obligee’s right of revocation.

4. Determination on the establishment of fraudulent act

A. Whether the remittance of this case constitutes a monetary donation contract

1) Relevant legal principles

In order for a debtor to have concluded a donation contract by false agreement with respect to money remitted to another person's deposit account, first of all, the debtor and the other person should be interpreted as having agreed with the parties on the grant of "donation" so that the money remitted as such belongs to another person ultimately and free of charge between the debtor and the other person. In addition, the burden of proof is that the above remittance is a fraudulent act that is subject to creditor's right of revocation.

Meanwhile, in a case where money is transferred to another person’s deposit account, the remittance may be made based on various legal causes. The mere fact that a person with a certain personal relationship consented or understood to transfer money owned to him/her to his/her own deposit account or to allow him/her to de facto control over his/her own deposit account with the knowledge that the money is transferred to his/her own deposit account in order to avoid tracking a taxation authority, etc. is, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement between the remitter and the account holder that he/she would grant the remittance amount free of charge as above to the account holder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the remittance act is a fraudulent act that causes a substantial decrease in the gross property of the remitter with only the remittance fact, without any specific legal cause (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da222725, Jan. 28, 2016).

2) Determination

As acknowledged in the above 1. As seen in the above paragraph, BB transferred the instant transfer to the Defendant, who is the mother. However, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant and FF, the parent of BB, and the testimony of witness BB, i.e., the entire purport of the pleadings: ① the Defendant and FF, the parent of BB, appear to have remitted the amount equivalent to the total amount of 00 won to BB through account transfer for business funds, etc. for nine times from July 22, 1998 to February 16, 2010; ② BB also transferred the amount equivalent to the total amount of KRW 18 times from February 20 to February 1, 2010 to the passbook under the name of the Defendant, which appears to be the Defendant at the time of the transfer of money to BB from the Defendant’s transfer to the Defendant, and thus, it is difficult to conclude that the money transfer between BB and the Defendant, other than the above Defendant’s transfer of money to B.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the remittance of this case is a gift to the defendant is without merit, without any further review.

B. Whether the instant remittance act was an act of collusion in collusion

1) Relevant legal principles

Performance is a quasi-legal act in which a debtor, in collusion with some of the creditors, performs performance with the intent to prejudice other creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10985, Mar. 25, 2005).

A creditor’s right to demand repayment of an obligation does not interfere with the exercise of his/her right by reason of the existence of another creditor. An obligor does not refuse the performance of an obligation on the ground that another creditor is liable to perform his/her obligation according to the principal place of the obligation. As such, even in cases where a debtor’s joint security of other creditors is reduced by repaying his/her obligation to a specific creditor in excess of his/her obligation, such performance does not constitute a fraudulent act, unless the obligor, in collusion with some creditors, intended to prejudice other creditors.

Whether a debtor, in collusion with some of other creditors, has an intent to harm other creditors, must be proved by the person asserting that the debtor is a fraudulent act. The determination should be made by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as whether the debtor's claims against the debtor exist, whether the beneficiary has actually been repaid by the debtor, the amount of the debtor's claims against the beneficiary, the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary, the debtor's ability to repay and his awareness of the beneficiary, the act of the beneficiary before and after the repayment, and the circumstances and circumstances of the debtor and the beneficiary at the time of repayment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10985, Mar.

2) Determination

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances are acknowledged as follows: ① the Defendant alleged that ○○○○○○○○○○ at the time of the instant remittance (hereinafter “instant remittance”). However, as seen in the above 3-A-B, the Defendant’s transfer of the money transferred to BB to ○○○○○○○○○○ and BB, and the Defendant’s transfer of the money equivalent to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which remains at the time of the instant repayment act is deemed to be merely ○○○○○○○○○, and ② the Defendant was unable to submit other financial data that could be deemed to have lent money to BB; ③ the Defendant’s transfer of money transferred to BB from the Defendant’s account from July 22, 198, 198, the Defendant did not have any doubt as to whether the Defendant was able to pay the money in collusion with the Defendant at the time of the instant act of repayment, in light of the fact that the Defendant did not know that most of the Defendant’s transfer of the real estate was 2.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the act of repayment of this case must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the repayment of this case ○○○○○ and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day following the day when the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

5. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.