The taxation disposition of transfer income tax becomes final and conclusive, that a tax claim has occurred.

At the time of the legal act, it can be deemed that there was a high probability of the fact that the Plaintiff’s claim for capital gains tax was based on the establishment of the taxation claim and the future that the claim was created, and thereafter, it is deemed that there was a high probability that the taxation claim has been realized

2012 Ghana 208408 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

ThisAAA

May 9, 2013

May 23, 2013

1. The contract of donation concluded on November 13, 2009 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and the rightB shall be revoked within the scope of 000 won.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive 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. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 23, 2009, "No. 21, 2009, the ownership transfer registration was made on January 21, 2009 in the name of Yoonpo-si and one parcel of land (hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case") on which the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of rightB." (B) On March 10, 2009, on the ground that the land in this case was farmland for not less than eight years, the head of the Guro-si District Tax Office applied for reduction of capital gains tax of 00 won on the ground that it was farmland.

C. However, on November 23, 2009, the former Director of the Guro Tax Office notified the rightB of the taxation of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on the ground that it does not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption, and on January 4, 2010, the said capital gains tax was imposed, and on January 31, 2009, the date on which the said capital gains tax liability becomes effective.

D. Meanwhile, on November 13, 2009, the rightB completed the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of donation on the same day with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) to the Defendant, who is the wife, on the same day.” (e) The rightB had positive property at the time of the said donation, which is equivalent to KRW 000 as the standard market price, owned KRW 000 as the instant real estate and the deposit against the Japanese bank, and had the Plaintiff bear the duty of 00 won as the small property and the obligation of 00 won as to DD as to the Plaintiff.

F. At the time of June 27, 2012, the Plaintiff held a taxation claim of KRW 000,000 in total with capital gains tax and additional dues against the rightB.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5, and 8, 9 and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Formation of preserved claims

The Plaintiff’s taxation claim against the Plaintiff’s rightB is due to the existence of the Plaintiff’s rightB prior to the gift of the instant real estate to the Defendant and becomes the obligee’s right of revocation. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the instant land was transferred to title trust by CEE, and insofar as the transfer income pursuant to the said disposition belongs to CEE, the taxpayer of the said transfer income tax is not the rightB, but the title truster, and the Plaintiff’s preserved claim does not exist. In full view of the arguments in 1 and 2, the fact that the rightB was entrusted by OO, and the fact that the ownership of the instant land was transferred by O is recognized, even though the title trustee is not the actual owner of the transferred land, the title holder on the register of the land was the title trustee, and unless the title trust relationship was registered, the tax authority, which is the third party, is bound to have registered the ownership transfer registration on the instant land, and that the Plaintiff’s taxation claim was not established at the time of 201, and there is no probability that the said taxation claim was established in the Plaintiff’s taxation claim.

(b) The establishment and intent of fraudulent act;

In each entry in Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 2, the following circumstances recognized as a whole by considering the overall purport of the pleadings, and, i.e., the rightB had been liable to pay the entire transfer income tax under an agreement with the CE at the time of the above donation, and the rightB had been liable to pay the entire transfer income tax; and

• Since the tax authorities did not receive any notification for about eight months from the time of application for reduction of or exemption from income tax, it seems that at the time of the above donation, it would have been sufficiently aware that the above transfer income tax would be imposed on the Defendant at the time of the above donation, and the rightB would have been given prior notice for the above imposition of transfer income tax, and the rightB would have been given to the Defendant ten (10) days before the rightB, and the only real estate owned by the rightB was given to the Defendant, thereby causing a shortage in securing the Plaintiff’s tax claims, and the rightB would be presumed to have been aware that the above donation would cause damage to the Plaintiff by reducing the creditor’s joint security due to the decrease in the creditor’s tax claims, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed. Accordingly, the gift contract concluded between the Defendant and the rightB should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant bears the obligation to reinstate pursuant

(c) Scope and methods of reinstatement;

According to the evidence evidence evidence evidence No. 4, the defendant, the defendant, at least 00 won on January 16, 2012, and at least 000 won on April 5, 2012, can be acknowledged as having completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral, respectively. According to the above facts, the defendant, who is the beneficiary, has a duty to restore the property to the state where there is no restriction on the right to collateral security and return the property is considerably difficult. Thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff at a price equivalent to the plaintiff's secured claim amount within the limit of the joint collateral value of the real estate in this case. Meanwhile, fraudulent act is established only within the extent of the balance of the mortgage before the fraudulent act's collateral is deducted from the value of real estate, and it is clear that the joint collateral value of the real estate in this case is calculated by deducting the secured claim of DD from the above standard market value at least KRW 00,000,000 per annum, and the defendant shall pay damages for delay to the plaintiff within the limit of 000 days.

3. Conclusion

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