Whether the gift of the instant real estate constitutes a fraudulent act

The act of transferring the real estate of this case to her husband who is the spouse, even though the delinquent taxpayer has already been in excess of national taxes, and making a transfer registration of ownership by reason of donation constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff who is the tax claim.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2013 Ghana 4950 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Song AA

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

September 26, 2013

1. Revocation of a gift agreement concluded on September 30, 201 with the Defendant on September 30, 201 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet between the Defendant and EB (O-O-OO-OO-OO-O-O-O

2. The defendant will implement the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership due to the cancellation of fraudulent act with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list to B.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claim;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 and Article 257 of the Civil Procedure Act).

Cheongwon of the Gu

1. The relationship between the Defendant and the Nonparty B B

The defendant is the husband of the non-party B (hereinafter referred to as "non-party B") of the delinquent taxpayer.

2. Details of taxation claims which are preserved claims; and

A. The Nonparty, from September 16, 2010 to December 27, 2011, operated a new construction and sale business of a building under the trade name, “CCC development” at No. 1 O-O-O, O-O, O-O, O-O, O-O, O-O.

B. Although the business entity has faithfully filed a tax return in accordance with the relevant statutes and voluntarily reported and paid relevant national taxes, the Nonparty had the fact that the business entity sold the building located in the non-party D, etc. on August 24, 201 and September 29, 201, OO-type 586-1 and 590-1 of the same Ri to non-party D, etc. in relation to the operation of the above business, and did not report and pay the amount of KRW OOOO on January 27, 2012 (house exceeding national housing scale and commercial building) as the tax base for the portion corresponding to the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act.

C. Therefore, the head of the office of tax office under the Plaintiff’s head of the office of tax payment at the time of payment on March 31, 2012, notified the Nonparty of the correction of the OOOO(the date on which the basic legal relationship is established is the date on which August 24, 2011 and September 29, 201) for the second taxable period of value-added tax for the second taxable period of 2011, but did not pay the same up to the present, and thus is in arrears with the national tax, including the additional dues for the corresponding period, and the total amount of national tax, including the national tax that was paid without any payment after the return of the labor income tax, remains in three OO

3. Fraudulent act;

A. The Nonparty: (a) established the basic legal relationship of the taxation claim related to the above preserved claim; (b) predicted that the high value-added tax will be notified in the near future in the near future; or (c) reduced the liability property by completing the ownership transfer registration registration to the Defendant on October 19, 201 on the ground of the donation contract dated September 30, 201, which was received by the Changwon District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 53286, Oct. 19, 201; and (d) the Nonparty became insolvent and the Plaintiff was unable to obtain the satisfaction of the taxation claim.

B. The high probability that the national tax of the above large amount will be notified is realized in reality by the head of the above OO to notify the national tax of the above "2" and "C", but the non-party does not pay the high amount of national tax notified to him even at present.

C. In light of the fact that the non-party continued to possess the instant real estate and predicted that the amount of national tax would be notified, the non-party filed for the registration of ownership transfer, and that the transferee of the instant real estate due to the donation is the husband of the non-party, and that the notified national tax has not been paid at all up to now, the non-party’s act of transferring ownership of the instant real estate due to the donation to the defendant is a fraudulent act to be exempted from compulsory execution, such as the seizure of the instant real estate due to the disposition of national tax in arrears, instead of paying national tax

4. Intention and bad faith of the defendant;

In the near future, the Nonparty knew that the basic legal relations of the duty to pay taxes were established, and that the value-added tax would be notified in the near future, or that at the time of the registration of transfer of ownership transfer for the reason of donation to the Defendant, the instant real estate, which is the only property owned by himself, was the subject of taxation at the time of the registration of transfer of ownership transfer for the reason of donation. It should be viewed that the Defendant, as the husband of the Nonparty, knew the Nonparty

5. Whether the pertinent real estate is a well-grounded property

After the director of Busan Regional Tax Office and the director of the OOO of the plaintiff investigate the property of the non-party for the purpose of the disposition on default, the property is deemed to be the property which is the reason of the real estate of this case, as shown in the summary inquiry by each taxpayer.

6. The date on which he becomes aware of a fraudulent act;

The Busan Regional Tax Office, Busan Regional Tax Office, issued on April 2, 2013 a full certificate of the registered matters of the instant real estate in the process of investigating the delinquent taxpayer in order to execute the disposition on default against the non-party by a public official belonging to the Busan Regional Tax Office with no hidden property of the Republic of Korea. The real estate of this case was registered in the name of the defendant, and was aware of the non-party's fraudulent act

7. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the Nonparty’s act of transferring ownership of the instant real estate to the Defendant on the ground of the donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act, which is an act of knowing that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, a national tax creditor in order to evade tax liability. Therefore, the Plaintiff is bound to file this lawsuit, such as the purport of the claim under Article 406 of the Civil Act and Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act