Since one year has passed from the date on which a fraudulent act was known, this constitutes an illegal lawsuit filed with the exclusion period excessive.

It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed one year after the Plaintiff’s disposition of the instant real estate as a private intent at the time of termination of the investigation of capital gains tax amount, and such lawsuit constitutes an unlawful lawsuit filed with the exclusion period excessive.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2013 Ghana 106817 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

SAA

August 19, 2014

October 7, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The sales contract concluded on October 24, 201 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet between the defendant and B shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 00,000,000. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00,000,000 with 5% interest per annum from the day after the date the judgment of this case became final to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 24, 2011, B entered into a sales contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on October 28, 201.

B. The ○○ Tax Office notified the Defendant of the transfer income tax of KRW 00,000,000 on December 31, 2012, which had not reported the transfer income tax even if the B had sold the instant real estate to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and Gap evidence 2

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's main defense

Since the Plaintiff was aware of the instant fraudulent act around August 22, 2012, the instant lawsuit filed after the lapse of one year thereafter is unlawful as the exclusion period expires.

B. Determination

1) In the exercise of the obligee's right of revocation, "the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for the revocation" means the date when the obligee became aware of the requirement for the obligee's right of revocation, that is, the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligee had committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. In order for the obligee to be aware of the cause for revocation, the mere fact that the obligee was aware of the act of disposal of the property is insufficient, and further, it is required to know the fact that the obligor was aware of the existence of a specific fraudulent act and that the obligor had an intent to deceive the obligor (Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23857 Decided September 24, 20

2) As to the instant case, the fact that ○○ Tax Office did not have any dispute between the parties, even though the unpaid tax obligation was unpaid until the date of the instant sales contract, except for additional tax. According to the evidence Nos. 7 and 2, ○○ Tax Office was aware of the fact that ○○ Tax Office did not report capital gains tax even after having concluded the instant sales contract with the Defendant and completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the Defendant, and conducted an investigation for the determination of capital gains tax from August 8, 2012 to August 27, 2012. In that process, ○ Tax Office requested the Defendant to complete the investigation for the determination of the relevant sales contract, on August 16, 2012, ○ Tax Office to present all documents verifying the actual transaction amount of the instant sales contract to the Defendant by August 22, 2012, ○ Tax Office’s request for the determination of the outcome of the said investigation by the National Tax Service to complete the instant sales contract.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff knew on August 27, 2012 that the Plaintiff disposed of the instant real estate as a private will on August 27, 2012, when the investigation of the amount of capital gains tax oncheonB was completed at the latest. Since the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit was filed on August 28, 2013, it was illegal that the exclusion period was exceeded.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is decided as per Disposition.