Since the donation was made in excess of the debt, the act of donation constitutes a fraudulent act.

After receipt of the notice of capital gains tax, the gift act constitutes a fraudulent act, inasmuch as the gift was made to the Defendant and was omitted in excess of the obligation under the circumstances where there was no specific property when comprehensively considering the fact that the Defendant donated the instant real estate to the Defendant and the Defendant was the original taxpayer’s wife

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

201Adver 54088 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Section AA

March 6, 2012

March 20, 2012

1. The defendant and the non-party leB, address: The gift agreement entered into on February 3, 2010 with respect to the real estate in the attached list between the defendant and the non-party leB and the non-party leb: OOOOO apartment 00-0 000 000 - is revoked within the scope of 00 won.

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff ○○○○ and the Plaintiff 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 may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in the entry in Gap evidence 1 through 8, and Eul evidence 2, by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. On June 16, 2005, Nonparty B transferred 00 OOOO apartment 000 000 000 000 o-dong Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul to another person, and did not report capital gains tax thereon. On January 7, 2010, the head of the Dong-won Tax Office, the Defendant-affiliated Tax Office notified on January 31, 2010 leB of the capital gains taxOB as the payment deadline.

B. LapB did not pay the said taxes by July 22, 201, thereby reaching the OOB’s amount in arrears until the said date.

C. Meanwhile, after receiving the notice of transfer income tax sent on January 7, 2010 by the head of the Dongwon Tax Office, leB entered into a contract with the Defendant on February 2, 2010 regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), and completed the registration of transfer as the receipt of No. 2547 on February 3, 2010 by the Suwon District Court Head of the Suwon District Court registry Office, and YB completed the registration of transfer as of February 3, 201. At the time of the said donation, leB had no specific property except for the instant real estate (OOOO) and 146 moo-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-do, 1400 square meters (OOOwon), and there was no obligation to pay the maximum debt amount of OB to the instant real estate created by Han Bank as the creditor of the instant real estate.

2. Determination on the grounds for the revocation of a fraudulent act

A. As the Plaintiff is liable to pay the said tax, and the instant real estate was donated to the Defendant without any particular property, and thus, the said gift act constitutes a fraudulent act. In addition, considering the fact that leB immediately donated the instant real estate to the Defendant after receiving the notice of capital gains tax as above, and that the Defendant is the wife of leB, leB may be recognized that leB had the intention of deception at the time of the said donation, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed presumed to have been the beneficiary. Accordingly, the said gift contract concluded between the Defendant and leB ought to be revoked as a fraudulent act.

B. As to the method of restitution, according to the health unit, Gap evidence No. 4, the head of Suwon District Court, the head of Suwon District Court, the registry office, and the registry office, which received on March 24, 2006, completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum amount of OOOB, and the right to collateral security was cancelled on April 26, 201, after the fraudulent act in this case, it can be acknowledged that the mortgage was cancelled on April 26, 2011. As such, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the amount of OO0 won in the balance of the debt guaranteed at the time of the fraudulent act in the value of the real estate in this case, which was the maximum amount of OOO's debt guaranteed at the time of the fraudulent act. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as provided by the Civil Act from the next day to the date of full payment of this judgment.

3. The defendant's assertion and judgment

The defendant asserts that leB is merely a title trustee of the real estate of this case, and that leB does not have any tax liability because the actual owner of the real estate of this case is leB who is the male head. However, the defendant's assertion is not acceptable on the ground that the entries of 1-6 No. 1-6 of the evidence No. 1 are insufficient to recognize the above assertion and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.