a donation made by the lack of joint security in excess of liabilities, which constitutes a fraudulent act;

Tax claims are established prior to the date of disposal by a debtor and a gift created by the lack of joint security in excess of the obligation constitutes a fraudulent act, unless there are special circumstances, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the beneficiary has acted in good faith.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

201Gaz. 25369 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Song AA

February 24, 2012

March 30, 2012

1. A donation agreement concluded on May 2, 2007 between the defendant and SongB and (OB-dong 00-00 O apartment, 000, 000) is revoked with respect to 1/2 shares of 1/2 shares of O00-0 forest land 00-0 and 992 square meters in Kimpo-si, Jeju-si.

2. The Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the former registration with the ownership completed under No. 26473 on May 9, 2007 by the Busan District Court, Incheon District Court, Incheon District Court, Seocheon Branch Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, 1/2 of 1/2 of the Ori 00-0 forest of 992 square meters among the Ori-ri 00-0 forest of Mapo-si,

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts and issues without studio;

(a) Fact that does not studio;

At the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit, the amount of the tax in arrears by SongB was the total of 21,166,990, and the debtor BB's insolvency at the time of the fraudulent act.

(b)a dispute;

Whether the plaintiff's taxation claim becomes the preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation, whether the fraudulent act is constituted, and whether the defendant acted in good faith.

2. Judgment on the issue

(a) Claims for preservation;

The instant taxation claim becomes the subject of obligee’s right of revocation. The Defendant asserted that the instant taxation claim cannot be the subject of obligee’s right of revocation since it occurred in 2008 and 2009. However, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable. The date of establishing the instant taxation claim is from December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2006. (No. 2-1-5) The tax claim’s global income tax liability was established at the time of “the time when the period of taxation expires” and the tax claim’s rectification was merely a procedure to specifically determine the amount of tax established as above. Accordingly, it is probable that the Defendant’s tax claim would have become the basis for establishing the instant taxation claim’s obligee’s right of revocation prior to the expiration of the pertinent taxation period.

(b) Fraudulent act;

The donations made on May 2, 2007 by SongB constitutes a fraudulent act. The grounds are as follows:

. At the time of donation on May 2, 2007, the insolvency of SongB is recognized. [The fact that there is no dispute]

In the course of operating the PP distribution, SongB omitted part of the sales at the global income tax return, and in this situation donated the instant real estate to the Defendant, who is one of the parties to the BB himself/herself. [Evidence A through C], it appears that SongB was aware that the said donation was in the knowledge that the lack of joint security was caused, and the instant donation, which made the lack of joint security due to excess of debt, constitutes fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances.

(c) Good faith defense;

The defendant's good faith argument cannot be accepted. The grounds are as follows.

Since the debtor's act of disposal against a third party objectively constitutes a fraudulent act, the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed, so unless the beneficiary proves that the third party was bona fide at the time of the juristic act, the creditor can cancel the juristic act and claim restitution accordingly. In other words, the defendant's bad faith is presumed.

In cases where a debtor’s act of disposing of property constitutes a fraudulent act, objective and acceptable evidence, etc. should be supported when recognizing that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act. Only the debtor’s unilateral statement or a statement that is merely a third party’s abstract statement, it cannot be readily concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006).

- Examining the evidence submitted by the Defendant to prove that the Defendant was bona fide, the evidence Nos. 1 to 4 of the evidence Nos. 1 to 4 is merely related to the fact that the Defendant spent a certain amount of money out of his parent’s medical expenses, etc. It is not directly related to the Defendant’s good faith. The result of the Defendant’s personal examination is merely limited to the Defendant’s unilateral statement, which is the beneficiary, and it cannot be acknowledged that the Defendant was bona fide at

3. Conclusion

cite a claim