Revocation of Fraudulent Act

In excess of debt, the act of the non-party debtor's inheritance of the real estate of this case on the part of the non-party debtor by agreement and division of inherited property to the defendant who is a punishment.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2016 Ghana 538239 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AA

March 16, 2017

April 27, 2017

1. (a) The agreement on division of inherited property concluded on June 16, 2014 between the defendant and the non-party AA (*********************) is revoked with respect to 2/9 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

B. The defendant shall restore thisA with respect to 2/9 shares of the real estate listed in the attached list to thisA.

shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the cause.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. As of August 29, 2016, the Plaintiff-affiliated BB Tax Office andCC Tax Office have a national tax claim, such as capital gains tax of KRW 581,202,540 in total as follows.

B. ADD (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) died on June 16, 2014, and EA, EE, and ED jointly inherited the deceased, who are the wife of the deceased, and their children.

C. The Deceased owned the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On June 16, 2014, the Defendant, as co-inheritors of the Deceased, and EA, EE, and ED agreed on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”). Accordingly, on July 23, 2014, the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendant was completed on the ground of the instant agreement on the division of inherited property.

D. Meanwhile, at the time of the agreement on the division of the inherited property of this case, thisA was in excess of its obligation as it owns positive and negative properties as listed below.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Summary of the defense

On July 23, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant real estate, and jurisdiction, etc.

Since the indictment was immediately notified to the Plaintiff, on July 23, 2014, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the division of the instant inherited property with respect to the instant real estate on the grounds of the division of inherited property and that EA renounced the inheritance share of the instant real estate through the said division of inherited property. The instant suit was filed after the lapse of the exclusion period of one year thereafter, and

B. Determination

As alleged by the defendant, the details of the transfer registration between private persons shall be notified to the competent tax office.

Even if the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant was completed, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was unable to fully satisfy the claims due to the lack of joint security of claims or lack of joint security of claims, and that there was an intention to cause harm to the debtor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was an intention to cause harm to the debtor. Thus, there is no reason for the defendant's prior defense on the merits.

3. Determination

(a) Occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s national tax claim against EA shall be the division of the inherited property of this case.

shall be subject to the exercise of the right of revocation against such person.

On the other hand, the debtor who has already been in excess of his/her obligation agreed on the division of the inherited property.

In principle, a fraudulent act is deemed as a matter of principle in cases where the joint collateral against the general creditor has decreased due to the waiver of a right to the share of inheritance (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da26633, Jul. 10, 2014). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the agreement on the division of inherited property in this case constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditor of thisA, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to have been presumed to have been committed, inasmuch as the agreement on the division of inherited property in this case was insufficient by waiver of one’s share of inherited property with the Defendant, etc. while this was in excess of debt, while this agreement on the division of inherited property in this case was made with the Defendant, etc.

The Defendant did not know at all that this case’s national tax was delinquent, and the Defendant’s children, including thisA, have waived their respective inheritance shares in order to send out female life in the instant real estate and to enable the Defendant to receive a housing pension, and thus, the Defendant did not know at the time of the agreement on the division of inherited property of this case that the said agreement did not prejudice the obligee of this case.

However, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, it is proved that the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is malicious.

It is not a creditor who is not a creditor responsible, but a beneficiary or a subsequent purchaser is liable to prove the fact that he/she is in good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da237192, Jun. 11, 2015), and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary only with the statement of No. 5, and testimony of EDD, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, the defendant'

(b) The method of revoking and restoring to original state the fraudulent act;

The agreement on the division of the inherited property of this case must be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, and the defendant

due to its restitution, thisA is obligated to implement the procedures for ownership transfer registration on the ground that 2/9 shares, which are the shares of the inheritance of this case, are the shares of this case.

3. Conclusion

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