to the sole child after receipt of the notice of the result of the tax investigation constitutes a fraudulent act.

to the sole child after receipt of the notice of the result of the tax investigation constitutes a fraudulent act.

2015 Ghana 119501 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

EO

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

September 9, 2015

1. The contract of donation concluded on March 13, 2014 between the defendant and the non-partyO on the real estate stated in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. The Defendant shall comply with the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on March 13, 2014 by the receipt No. 7604, such as OO branch court’s O branch for the above real estate, to Nonparty OO.

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

Cheong-gu Office

As set forth in the text.

1. Indication of claim;

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

2. Applicable provisions;

Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Grounds of Claim

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s reason for imposing gift tax on OO

1) At around February 2009, EOO entered into a casino operation contract (a contract guaranteeing casino operation and goodwill) between AAAA and Buknam's hotel hotel located in Vietnam, AAAAA corporation (hereinafter referred to as "AAA") which was established in Hong Kong for the casino business in the OO hotel located in Vietnam, changed the representative director into the OO as a partner, and then entered into a casino operation contract (a contract guaranteeing casino operation and goodwill) between AAA and Buknam's hotel located in Vietnam on March 2009.

On the other hand, on April 18, 2009, Nonparty 1 invested USD 000 (00 million won in conversion amount) with the capital increase for casino business on April 18, 2009, and changed the shares of 50% (000 won in conversion amount) of the shares issued by AA in the name of EO, and EO donated 000 won in the capital increase of AA on April 18, 2009 to EO but did not report gift tax.

2) From September 3, 2013 to January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff conducted a tax investigation with respect to EO as a fund recipient for EO, and then sent to EO a notice of the result of the tax investigation that gift tax is imposed on the donation of the shares of AA free of charge on January 16, 2014, and notified the OO secretary under the Plaintiff of the taxation data.

3) As of April 1, 2014, the term of payment was set on April 30, 2014 and notified the Plaintiff to pay gift tax of KRW 000.

4) At the time of filing a lawsuit, O does not pay gift tax of KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax claim”) including additional KRW 000,000.

(b) Details of the disposal of real estate by O;

The director of the Central Regional Tax Office notified the result of the tax investigation on January 16, 2014, and filed a claim for pre-assessment review on February 21, 2014. On March 13, 2014, he/she concluded a donation contract with the defendant who is the child with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate in this case") which is the only real estate on March 13, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 13, 2014 for gift reasons.

2. Formation of preserved claims;

In principle, it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, at the time of such fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that serve as the basis of establishment of the claim, and there is high probability that the claim should be established in the near future by such legal relations, and in cases where a claim has been realized in the near future and its probability has been realized, such claim may also become a preserved claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da53704, Feb. 25, 2000).

In the case of this case, the duty to pay the gift tax to the plaintiff is abstract on the donation date (see Article 21 (2) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Thus, the duty to pay the gift tax to the plaintiff of thisO was established abstractly since April 18, 2009 when the O paid 000 won of the capital increase of AA by the OO on behalf of the plaintiff, and there was a high probability as to the fact that the legal relationship which forms the basis of the establishment of the claim has already been established, and as long as the O did not pay gift tax, it is based on the above basic legal relationship in the near future.

In addition, OO recognizes that the notice of the result of the tax investigation sent by the director of the regional tax office on January 16, 2014 is to be confirmed by the receipt of the notice of the result of the tax investigation, and in fact, the possibility is realized by the director of the OO to issue the gift tax payment notice to OO and the tax claim of this case has become final and conclusive. Therefore, the tax claim of this case against OO is the preserved claim of the lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act.

3. The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

Fraudulent act means an act that makes it impossible to fully satisfy the creditor's claims due to a decrease in assets by the debtor's act of disposal of assets, which causes a shortage of joint security for claims or lack of joint security already in a shortage.

In March 13, 2014, EO’s active property of EO at the time of donation of the instant real property to EOB on March 13, 2014 is KRW 000 won at the market price of the instant real property, and the passive property resulted in excess of liability by donation of the instant real property, which is the only property to the Defendant with the instant tax claim 000 won.

As such, EO’s donation to Defendant B, a child of the instant real property of this case, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, and at the same time, it is presumed that the obligor’s intent to cause harm to the Plaintiff.

4. Bad faith of the defendant

Since the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed, the beneficiary has the burden of proof (Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710 Decided April 14, 2006 and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da61280 Decided July 4, 2006, etc.).

It is reasonable to view that Defendant BB, as a child of OO, knew of the fact that such donation was fraudulent at the time of receiving the instant real estate donation from OOO in excess of its liability due to the tax liability of KRW 000,000, which will be imposed by the notice of tax investigation dispatched by the director of the regional tax office of OB.

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

The plaintiff had become aware of the fact that the real estate in this case was transferred to the defendant's name after the perusal of the register of the real estate after printing out the property status list to adjust the amount of delinquent taxes against OO, and was subject to a disposition on default on June 13, 2014.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the gift contract concluded on March 13, 2014 between the defendant and the non-partyO on the instant real estate constitutes a fraudulent act committed with the knowledge that it would prejudice the taxation right holder, and the defendant also knew the fact. Therefore, the defendant sought revocation of objection pursuant to Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 406 of the Civil Act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation of registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant, which was completed with respect to the instant real estate by restitution to the plaintiff. Thus, the above non-partyO's claim was filed to recover ownership in the name