It cannot be viewed as a gift because it was used as a principal business fund, and it does not constitute a fraudulent act.

It cannot be viewed as a gift because it was used as a principal business fund, and it does not constitute a fraudulent act.

2017 Ghana 113129 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

OO

March 22, 2018

April 19, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The contract of donation concluded between the defendant and AA is revoked within the limit of KRW 00,00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

1. Basic facts

(a) Sale of real estate by AA and transfer of sales proceeds;

1) AAA, the husband of the Defendant, has concluded a sales contract to sell OO-O-O-O-O-O-O and four other (O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O

2) FromO.O. toO.O.O. 2015 toO.O. 2015, AA receives OO won out of the purchase price (352-O-***) from the above account to the account in the name of BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BB”), AA transferred OO won out of the purchase price to the account in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “transfer of the instant money”), O.O.O. 2015 to the account in the name of the Defendant (420-O-***) bank (hereinafter referred to as “O-O-**) in the name of the Defendant, O-O-O-* in the name of the Defendant (579-O-*****).

(b) aA’s default of national taxes;

AAA did not pay the reported amount of capital gains tax under the instant sales contract, and the head of the OO office notified AA of 2016O.O.O. transfer income tax O.O.O., at present, AA is an OO., including additional dues (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax claim”).

C. The Defendant’s business operator

On the other hand, the defendant opened "CC oil station" in 2000O.O.O. O.O. O.O. O.O. O.O.O.O., which is engaged in oil wholesale and retail business.

Grounds for Recognition

Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 7, and Eul evidence 8 and 9 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The assertion

1) Plaintiff

The transfer of the instant money, out of the purchase price received by AA under the instant sales contract, to the Defendant account or transferred the instant money to BB, is ultimately a fraudulent act that deepens the status of excess of the obligation of AA by means of donation to the Defendant. The Defendant, as the spouse of AA, knew that the said act committed by AA to evade the Plaintiff’s tax liability against the Plaintiff, constitutes a fraudulent act. Therefore, the said donation was revoked within the scope of the OO won, which is the part causing excess of the obligation due to the fraudulent act among the OO won of the instant tax claim amount, and the Defendant, the beneficiary, is liable to pay the Plaintiff the equivalent amount as compensation for damages.

2) Defendant

The business operator of the CCTV is registered as the defendant, but this is merely nominal and actually operated by AAA. AAA only paid fuel payment, or did not donate to the defendant any other debt incurred in the course of operating theCC stations. AA’s act is ultimately a reduction of positive property at the same time as the reduction of positive property and there is no change in the gross property, and thus, it cannot be deemed an act detrimental to the plaintiff.

B. Determination

1) The key issue of the instant case is whether AA’s instant act can be seen as a donation to the Defendant, and it depends on whether AA actually operates theCC stations and bears the burden of friendly proof of obligations arising during the course of business.

2) According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 10, 11, 14, and 17, the defendant reported the income accrued from the place of business ofCC stations to its global income from 20O.O.O.O.O.O. to the date, the defendant has been living until now after moving into 20O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O, but AAA had been living as the defendant at the above place of business, and the address was moved to 2015O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O., the defendant's case of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders's Punishment Act and the police case of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders's Punishment Act (O.O.O.O.O. and the case of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders's Punishment Act.

3) However, considering the facts and circumstances described in paragraphs (a) through (e) below, which can be acknowledged according to the respective statements and arguments in subparagraphs 3 through 23 of the evidence revealed in the basic facts, it is reasonable to view that AA independently operated theCC oil station registered under the name of the Defendant, or paid the instant transfer money, such as oil price, at least in the course of operating it jointly with the Defendant. The Defendant’s filing of the business income of theCC oil station with the Defendant’s own income is an inevitable act insofar as the business operator registered is the Defendant, and it does not interfere with the recognition that the Defendant and AA’s address transfer for a certain period of time differs from the other circumstances submitted by the Plaintiff. In addition, it is insufficient to recognize the transfer of the instant money with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff as a donation to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the fraudulent act that the transfer of the instant money constitutes a damage to the tax claim is without merit.

(A) The registration of ownership has been completed in the name of DD type D D D (hereinafter referred to as the “JE”) on the land site of theCC head office (OOO2 prior to OOO2). The clan head office is the Defendant, while the EE, a partner of the Defendant, was engaged in the business of building the gas station by leasing the land around 199O.O.M. around 199 and building the FF oil station, while AA accepted the above gas station around 2010, while it was engaged in the business of building the gas station and building the gas station in the name of FF oil station.

(B) At the time, AA paid rent to the Sejong Association. At the same time, at the same time, the Defendant borrowed a insufficient amount ofCC gas station operation fund to its branch members. For example, among the above branch members, GG borrowed O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O. to secure loan obligations at an interest rate of 1.8% per month, up to the completion period of the registration of creation of a mortgage with respect to the amount of OOO’s pre-O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.’s loan to the Defendant. AA transferred the amount of money received as the instant purchase price to the 2015 O.O.O.G., the Plaintiff and the Defendant deleted the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the 13th day of the same month. The AA provided the Defendant with the KRW 2000 from the 100 O.O.O.200 to the 205 OHO.O.O.O.O.2 under the condition of the purchase fund.

(C) The employees in charge of BB and other transaction-related persons are in charge of the investigation agency of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act or this court, which stated that the actual president of theCC is AA, is the head of the agency in charge of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the details of transfer of money known to the Defendant’s account in the basic facts are objective materials to facilitate the trust of the above confirmation of facts.

(D) The same holds true for the use of the instant transfer money. OOOB transferred to 2015O.O. BB is intended to pay for the fuel payment of theCC oil station. The total amount transferred by dividing the Defendant’s two accounts was used to pay for the fuel payment of theCC oil station, toilet, construction cost, and fuel payment purchased by credit cards.

(E) In the accusation case of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, AA made a statement that seems to be somewhat unfavorable, but the same opportunity to make a statement clearly stated that he/she paid the oil payment liability, etc. incurred in operating the gas station in the instant purchase price, and maintained consistency in the OO public prosecutor’s office to which the case was forwarded. Ultimately, the prosecutor issued a non-prosecution disposition on the above accusation case on the ground that “AA transferred the instant money to the Defendant account to evade tax liability” on the ground that there was no suspicion of O.O.O.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.