Division of inherited property for which a delinquent taxpayer waives his/her share of inheritance constitutes fraudulent act

In the event that a delinquent taxpayer entered into an agreement on division of inherited property that renounces his/her share of inheritance in excess of his/her liability, such agreement constitutes a fraudulent act, and the defendants who were aware of the above circumstances are presumed

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration of Fraudulent Act

2017 Ghana 227695 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AAA 2

January 9, 2018

February 20, 2018

1. In the agreement between the Defendants and the ZZ on division of inherited property concluded on June 8, 2016, the part relating to the shares of Defendant CCC 72.75/2700 of each of the real property listed in Schedule 1, 2, 3, and 5, and the shares of Defendant CCC 72.75/2700 of each of the real property listed in Schedule 1, 2, 3, and 4, as well as the shares of Defendant AA and BB 72.25/2700 of each

2. In relation to the ZZ, the defendant AA shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of each real name with respect to shares of 1/4 of each real estate listed in Schedule 1, Section 1, Section 2, Section 3, and Section 5, as to shares of 72.75/270 of the real estate listed in Schedule 4, as to shares of 72.75/270 of the real estate listed in Schedule 1, Section 1, Section 2, and Section BB, respectively.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a creditor who has a national tax claim of KRW 000 as shown in the attached Table 2 with respect to the obligor’s Z as to the Z.

B. DD owned an OO-O-O-28/324 shares (=869/2,70 shares) in the attached list 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the real estate listed in paragraph 4 of the same list as the real estate listed in the attached list 1, 1, 2, 3, and 5.

C. The DDR died on May 11, 2016, and its inheritor is the ZZ and the Defendants, which are children.

section 1.

(d) ZZ and the Defendants: (a) on June 8, 2016, the annexed list 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the instant real estate

Re-real estate shall be owned by Defendant AA, and 290/270 shares out of OO-O-O-O-8.9 square meters listed in paragraph (4) of the same list are owned by Defendant CCC; and 289.5/2700 shares are owned by Defendant BB and AA; and ZZ entered into an agreement on division of inherited property with the content of dividing the inherited property by not entirely being inherited. As agreed above, the ownership transfer registration was completed on May 11, 2016 on the ground of the inheritance by agreement division.

E. As of June 8, 2016, the active property of the Z was 1/50 shares among the OOOOO condominiums, and the value was 00 won.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence No. 1, witness Z testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Revocation of fraudulent act

According to the facts stated in Paragraph 1, ZZ concluded an agreement on the division of inherited property with the Defendants on June 8, 2016 that the Defendants did not fully inherit the lost DD’s inherited property, and deepens the insolvent condition against the general creditors such as the Plaintiff, etc.

The agreement on the division of the above inherited property constitutes a fraudulent act, and the ZZ becomes aware of the fact that the above agreement deepens the insolvent at the time of the above agreement, and on the other hand, the above agreement is objective.

As long as a fraudulent act constitutes a fraudulent act, the intent of the Defendants, a beneficiary of the above sales contract, is presumed to be intentional.

The Defendants: (a) on October 12, 201, the Z established a collateral on the real estate listed in attached Table 1(5) with the O bank; (b) borrowed 000 won to the O bank; (c) received the entire land listed in attached Table 1(4) from the D; (d) on November 28, 2012, the Defendants had D and the Defendants create a collateral on the O bank; (c) borrowed 00 won in the name of the Defendant AA; (d) borrowed 00 won from the O bank to repay the above 00 won loan; and (d) the Plaintiff claimed that the Z was not entitled to a collateral on the part of the total amount of 00 won loan; and (e) the Plaintiff loaned the entire land listed in attached Table 1(4) with the Z; and (e) the mother claimed that the Z was not entitled to a collateral on the part of the total amount of contributory portion; and (e) the Z was not entitled to an heir’s share in the inherited property.

The health class, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 15-2, Eul evidence 18-4 and 5, and the witness

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in the testimony of the Z, it may be recognized that the ZZ established a collateral on the real estate listed in attached Table 1(5) on October 12, 201 with the ZZ as the whole and used the money borrowed from it after obtaining a loan of KRW 000. The entire land listed in attached Table 1(4) on November 28, 201 and attached Table 1(4) shall be set up in the ZZ and the Defendants established a collateral on the ZZ and used the money in the name of the Defendant AAA to obtain a loan of KRW 00,000 in total from the ZZZ. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. The Defendants’ assertion that Defendant AA, as so argued by the Defendants, should not be viewed as a special beneficiary who received a donation of more than one’s share of inheritance. Accordingly, Defendant AA’s mother, as the mother of the ZZ, did not accept the aforementioned real estate as the aforementioned list of co-owned properties.

According to the above, among the agreement on the division of inherited property on June 8, 2016 between the Defendants, the obligor and the beneficiary, the part concerning each of the real property listed in the separate sheet 1, 1, 2, 3, and 1/4 shares equivalent to the shares of the Z, and the part concerning each of the real property listed in the separate sheet 1, 2, 3, and 5, and the part concerning each of the real property listed in paragraph 4 of the same list concerning the Defendant CCC’s share (=2.75/2700 shares acquired by the Defendant CCC - the shares of 290/270 shares - the shares of 290/25/2700 shares corresponding to the shares of the ZB), and the shares of 72.25/270 shares of the Defendant AA and BB, each of which was acquired by Defendant AA and BB, should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

(b) Methods of reinstatement;

In addition to seeking cancellation of the registration in order for a person who has registered ownership or who has acquired ownership by law to restore the true title of the registration, it is also necessary to seek implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer against the current title holder in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of a fraudulent act. This legal principle can be applied as it is to a case where a beneficiary intends to return the title of the real estate for cancellation from the beneficiary to the debtor in the future. Accordingly, the creditor may seek the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer against the beneficiary instead of seeking cancellation of the registration in the name of the beneficiary by means of restitution due to cancellation of the fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da53704, Feb. 25, 200).

If so, on June 8, 2016, after the cancellation of the agreement on the division of inherited property, the ZZ is obligated to restore the ZZ to its original state; the defendant AA has the obligation to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the restoration of their original names as to the 1/4 shares of each of the real estate listed in attached Tables 1, 1, 2, 3, and 5; and the defendant CCC among the real estate listed in paragraph 4 of the same Schedule as to the 72.75/270 shares; and the defendant AA and BB have the obligation to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted.