sale of real estate to the relative with the burden of capital gains tax and constitutes a fraudulent act

Unless there are special circumstances, a fraudulent act is deemed to be a fraudulent act and a bad faith of the debtor's will and beneficiary is presumed to be a fraudulent act, and thus, it should be revoked as a fraudulent act, unless there are special circumstances.

2012 Ghana 208616 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Gangwon A

October 26, 2012

November 9, 2012

1. With respect to one half of 140, and 31 square meters of forest 000 O-ri, in the calculation of Gyeongbuk-do Office, and one half of them shall be performed; and

A. The sales contract concluded on May 11, 2009 between the defendant and the strongB shall be revoked.

B. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer, which was completed on May 12, 2009 by the Daegu District Court Dolldong registry office, as the plaintiff completed on May 12, 2009

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 2, 2008, Gangnam-gu, Daegu-gu, 000 OOO-dong, entered into a sales contract between the KOOO-dong Community Fund and the KOO-dong Community Fund to sell a building on its own, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the above real estate on September 22, 2008.

B. The Gangnam Daegu Tax Office of May 1, 2009 filed a final return on capital gains tax for the transfer of each of the above real estate in the Nam Daegu Tax Office, but did not pay capital gains tax. Accordingly, on August 10, 2009, the director of the tax office of Nam Daegu Tax Office of the Plaintiff determined the total amount of capital gains tax to be paid for the transfer of the above real estate (=00 won determined as the determined tax amount + penalty tax amount of 00 won + penalty tax amount of 000 won due due due) and notified the GangwonB on August 31, 2009, but the riverB did not pay this up to the date.

"B. Meanwhile, on May 11, 2009, between the Defendant, who is a relative and co-owner, and the Defendant, as the co-owner, entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell one-half of the 140 m31 m31 m2 (hereinafter referred to as "the instant real estate") out of the OOri 00 forest and 140 m331 m2 (hereinafter referred to as "the instant sales contract"), and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 12, 2009 as the receipt of 9525 m25 of the Daegu District Court Ironn registry." At the time of the instant sales contract, DB owned the instant real estate amounting to KRW 00,000 as active property, while the Plaintiff was a small property, and there was a capital gains tax amounting to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-satched facts, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Gap evidence 9-2, Gap evidence 12, 15 through 17, 19, and 20 evidence (if available, including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Establishment of fraudulent act

According to the above facts, while Gangwon bears the obligation of capital gains tax against the plaintiff, the real estate in this case was sold to the defendant on September 30, 2008 and caused or deepened the shortage of common security for the plaintiff and general creditors, including the plaintiff. Thus, the sales contract in this case is presumed to be a fraudulent act against the plaintiff who is the creditor, barring special circumstances, and the bad faith on the defendant's fraudulent act is presumed to be presumed to be committed against the plaintiff who is the debtor, and the defendant who is the beneficiary. Accordingly, the defendant purchased the real estate in this case from Gangwon-gu on May 11, 2009 by paying 00 won for each legitimate price, so the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary, but the defendant's defense is not sufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to support it.

(b)Indivate

Therefore, the sales contract of this case must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by the Daegu District Court No. 9525 on May 12, 2009 with respect to the real estate of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

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