an act of donation of cash to children in excess of debt constitutes a fraudulent act.

The defendant, who is a general creditor, has made a donation of cash which is easy to consume in excess of his/her obligation, which constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff et al. by reducing the joint security of the plaintiff et al.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

201Gaz. 35947 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

XX Kim

June 14, 2012

July 12, 2012

1. The contract between the defendant and the non-party A with respect to a 000 won concluded on November 3, 2008 and the contract for a 000 won concluded on November 14, 2008 shall be revoked, respectively.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence 2 and Gap evidence 4-1 and 2:

A. On January 14, 2008, Nonparty A transferred 000 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m200 m200 m

B. On May 28, 2010, the head of the Goyang Tax Office issued a notice of the decision of the transfer income tax of KRW 000 on July 31, 2010 to the head of the tax office, but the head of the tax office did not pay the transfer income tax.

C. The Funeral Service donated each of the following: (a) on Nov. 3, 2008, KRW 000 on Nov. 3, 2008, and KRW 000 on Nov. 14, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the gift agreements of this case”) to the Defendant, who is the ASEAN.

D. At the time of each gift contract of this case, the President A had approximately KRW 000 financial assets and did not have other properties.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 21(1) and (2)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in the case of income tax paid by preliminary return, tax liability is established on the last day of the month in which the amount forming the tax base of the income tax paid by preliminary return accrues. As such, the tax liability of the headA for capital gains tax has already been established on January 31, 2008, and the Plaintiff’s tax claim against the headA becomes the preserved right of the claim for revocation

B. According to the above facts, the head of the Dong donated cash which is easy to consume in excess of the debt, to the defendant, who is an ordinary creditor, and it is reasonable to deem that the head of the Dong knew that each of the gift contracts of this case was detrimental to the plaintiff, etc. by reducing the joint security of the plaintiff, etc., which is a general creditor, and that the head of the Dong knew that the contract of this case was detrimental to the general creditor. In light of each of the above evidence, it is reasonable to deem that the head of the Dong knew that the defendant, who is the beneficiary, would be detrimental to the general creditor of the head of the Dong by each of the gift contracts of this case, even in light of the location of the above real estate, base price, holding period of the head

From September 24, 2001, the defendant was working in XX in Gangwon-do, and he was living separately with the defendant when KimB, a type of Kim Jong-B, who had not been in a usual relationship, collected the above real estate, and the defendant received the above money from the beneficiary of good faith because he was in need of study funds, etc. for children who sold the above real estate, but did not know that he did not pay the transfer income tax, and received the above money from the beneficiary of the above money. Thus, the defendant argued to the purport that he was a bona fide beneficiary. However, it is difficult for the defendant to believe that the statement of No. 4 was consistent with the fact that the defendant was bona fide, and it is hard to believe that the statement of No. 1-5, No. 2, No. 3-1 through 6, No. 5, No. 6-1, No. 2, and No. 7 through No. 9 was insufficient to recognize that the above defendant was bona fide, and thus, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

C. Therefore, each contract of this case between the defendant and the headA shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant shall be obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 000 won and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day after the judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.