Since the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act and is presumed to be the intent of the debtor and the defendant, the instant sales contract is revoked and the registration in the name of the defendant is revoked.

Since the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act and is presumed to be the intent of the debtor and the defendant, the instant sales contract is revoked and the registration in the name of the defendant is revoked.

Article 1 of the National Tax Collection Act

2013 Ghana 300265 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Kim x 1

on April 24, 2016

1. The sales contract concluded on March 4, 201 with respect to the portion of 171/2078 out of the real estate listed in the separate sheet x (Defendant Kim x x 1711/207 among the real estate listed in the separate sheet x 2. The sale contract is revoked;

A. Defendant Kim x Daegu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court x Transfer of ownership completed under No. 16935 on March 4, 2013:

B. New Defendant x Daegu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court 】 The procedure for registration cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 67947, Jul. 26, 2013.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) A taxation claim;

1) On February 25, 2013, the head of a tax office under the Plaintiff-affiliated tax office: (a) commenced a tax investigation on development ¡¿ (stock company on April 3, 2013); (b) served a tax payment notice of corporate tax of KRW 97,580,104 ( May 31, 2013) for the business year 】 (i) 】 (ii) the development was not paid even after the due date for payment expires 】 (iii) the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the development 】 (iv) and (v) the head of the tax office has designated the representative director of the development 】 (v) as the oligopolistic shareholder under Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes 】 (v) the second person liable for duty payment 】 (v) the amount in arrears 】 new 】 (v) the payment notice of KRW 342,348,540 corresponding to the share ratio of stocks 】 (v) the new 】 the payment notice was received on July 222, 2013.

3) However, the new x the above corporate tax was not paid, and the delinquent tax amount including the additional dues was 366,279,660 won at the time of the closing of the instant argument.

B. The real estate disposal new 】 (a) on March 4, 2013, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet on March 4, 2013, the Defendant Kim Kim 】 (a) concluded a sales contract with the Defendant Kim 】 and completed the registration of ownership transfer as described in paragraph (a) of Article 2 of the same day. Thereafter, the Defendant Kim 】 (b) concluded a sales contract with the Defendant Kim 】 on July 25, 2013 】 Defendant New 】 (a) concluded a sales contract with the Defendant 】 and completed the registration of ownership transfer as described in paragraph (b) of Article 2-B of the Order.

[Ground of recognition] The evidence Nos. 2 through 7, Eul No. 1 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

New x the new x the area of the lawsuit in this case 】 The area of the lawsuit in this case 】 The area of the lawsuit in this case 】

I argue that it is legal.

In the case of double litigation, either of the previous or subsequent litigation shall take place even in the case of double litigation.

If the overlapping situation is resolved, the remaining one shall be legitimate.

In the case of this case, the plaintiff did not state the purport of the whole pleading in the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2

on January 7, 2014, before the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s new x 2014 Ghana against the instant lawsuit

3011 Recognition that a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act was filed, the new defendant ¡¿ The withdrawal of the lawsuit against the defendant ¡¿

Therefore, the defendant was dismissed since the new lawsuit in this case 】 the duplicate of the part 】

New 】 The above argument shall not be accepted.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

1) In principle, a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation may be deemed as a fraudulent act.

it is necessary that the act was committed before the act was committed, but it had already been done at the time of such fraudulent act.

There is a legal relationship which serves as the basis for the establishment of a claim and in the near future such legal relationship.

Miscellaneous is highly probable to the effect that bonds are created, and in fact, in the near future.

Where a claim has been created due to its feasibility, the claim shall also be preserved for the creditor's right of revocation.

section 23(3) of this title.

According to the above facts of recognition, at the time of March 4, 2013 】 Plaintiff 】 corporate tax on development 】 corporate tax on development 】 secondary liability.

New tax liability 】 The legal relations forming the basis for the establishment of a tax claim against the tax liability 】

In the near future as the development did not pay the above corporate tax 】 new 】 the second in the middle.

It was highly probable that the duty to pay was established, and it was actually probable.

Tax claims due to the realization of the secondary tax liability 】 Plaintiff’s new tax claims 】 Tax claims due to the secondary tax liability

Since the taxation claim is established, the preserved claim can also become the preserved claim of cancellation of speculative act.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

New 】 Defendant Kim 】 Transfer of the real estate share in excess of the obligation 】

as a means of reducing joint security for general creditors and doing so against the plaintiff as a creditor.

In light of the purport of the whole argument in Gap evidence No. 7, it is recognized that it was known that the new 】 the creditor's joint security was reduced due to this 】 the creditor's joint security, thereby damaging the plaintiff as the creditor.

Therefore, the new ¡¿ defendant Kim 】 the sales contract mentioned in paragraph (1) of the order between the parties should be revoked as a fraudulent act. As a result, the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser shall be restored to their original state, the subsequent purchaser shall be liable to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of each transfer of ownership as stated in paragraph (1) 】 (B).

3. Conclusion

If so, all of the plaintiff's claims are accepted as reasonable.