The lawsuit of this case is illegal after one year has passed from the date on which the fraudulent act was known.

The plaintiff seems to have been aware of the existence of fraudulent act and the intention of the BB's deception before and after the second disposition date, which was one year prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the lawsuit in this case is illegal.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

Daegu District Court-2013-Kadan-823036 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AA Corporation

oly 24, 2014

December 24, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

A sales contract concluded on September 14, 201 between B and the defendant with respect to the real estate listed in paragraphs (1) through (3) in the attached list of the former office shall be revoked. The defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership, which was completed by the Daegu District Court No. 50768 on September 19, 201, to BB.

1. Basic facts

(a) A taxation claim;

1) From September 14, 201 to October 15, 2011, the head of the tax office under the Plaintiff’s jurisdiction conducted a tax investigation into AA (hereinafter “AA”) with the representative director.

The Director of the Port Tax Office found AA under-reported the tax base and amount of corporate tax for the business year from 2005 to 2010, and corrected and imposed corporate tax of KRW 2,272,083,040 to the said corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "first disposition").

On September 16, 2011, the Director of the Port Tax Office attached each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by BB (hereinafter referred to as "each of the real estate in this case"), which is the representative director of the company, to the above taxation claim, the real estate listed in paragraphs 1 and 2, the OO-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-O09 (hereinafter referred to as "O-O-O apartment") on September 14, 201. A paid all the above corporate tax on November 14, 201, and on November 14, 2011, the Director of the Tax Office applied for the cancellation of attachment of the remaining real estate except the O-O apartment.

2) On November 1, 201, when AA’s corporate tax base on income for the business year from 2005 to 2010 was corrected, the director of the tax office at the port notified the representative director to dispose of the amount included in the calculation of earnings for recognition to BB. A did not pay the amount after filing a revised return on the performance of withholding taxes by reflecting the above recognition disposition. On December 21, 2011, the director of the tax office at the port of entry designated BB as the second taxpayer and notified the said company to pay the amount of KRW 1,01,428,00 equivalent to the share ratio of BB (90%) out of the amount in arrears (hereinafter “second disposition”).

B. On September 14, 2011, BB sold each of the instant real estate to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 19, 2011.

2. Determination on this safety defense

The Defendant, on September 6, 201, seized each of the instant real estate on September 6, 201, and applied for the cancellation of attachment on November 14, 201. The Defendant filed the instant lawsuit after the lapse of at least one year from the date it had already known that the instant sales contract was concluded. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

A lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act shall be brought within one year from the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act). The "date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation" in the exercise of the obligee's right of revocation refers to the date when the obligor becomes aware of the fact that the obligee had committed a fraudulent act while being aware of the fact that the obligee had committed a disposal act of the property. This is insufficient to simply recognize the fact that the obligor had conducted a disposal act of the property. Furthermore, it is necessary to inform the obligor of the fact that the obligor was aware of the existence of a specific fraudulent act, and further, he/she had the intent to injure the obligor. In such case, the limitation period and the burden of proof lies in the party to the lawsuit for revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da63102, Mar. 26, 2009; 201Da71684, Jan. 13, 2011).

In light of the following facts and circumstances, it seems that the Plaintiff had been aware of the existence of fraudulent act and the intention of the BB BB before and after the date of the second disposition, which was one year prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, in light of the apparent fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on December 19, 2013. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

A) At the time of the instant sales contract asserted by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the status of active and negative property BB at the time of the instant sales contract is as shown in the attached Form

B) The Plaintiff appears to have known all of the active property BB around the date of the second disposal.

① The active property of BB is mainly real estate and shares. The Plaintiff may verify the status of the real estate and shares held by the delinquent taxpayer at any time. In fact, immediately after the second disposition, the Plaintiff confirmed the property of BB and excluded each of the instant real estate already disposed of, and completed the attachment registration on the land of Sungnam-si on December 23, 2011. In addition, the head of the tax office of the World War requests the release of the attachment to sell OOO apartment from BB on December 5, 201 so that he/she can pay AA’s tax. The following day was permitted.

② On September 14, 2011, the director of the tax office attached membership rights toCC Co., Ltd. (BB) and attached the said claim again on December 21, 2011.

C) The Plaintiff seems to have been aware of all the small assets of BB.

① The small property BB occupies most of the secured debt of the Plaintiff’s tax liability and the secured debt of the right to collateral security established in the OOO apartment.

(2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff was aware of the establishment of the right to collateral security, as it allowed BB to dispose of the apartment house before the second disposition, and calculated the disposal amount in consideration of the right to collateral security at the time.

D) When compiling the above points, the Plaintiff could identify the active and passive properties of BB without any difficulty and verify whether BB exceeded the obligation. (If BB exceeds the obligation at the time of the instant sales contract as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff could have identified the active and passive properties.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.