Whether a sales contract between relatives constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor, and whether he/she was aware of such fact.

It is reasonable to deem that the sales contract of this case was known that the representative (director) of the Defendant Company was between the company and the company, and the non-party company was aware of the fact that the sales contract of this case was concluded ten days after the date on which it received a notice of tax payment on the amount of the national taxes of this case.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2015 Ghana 116292 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AA Corporation

April 28, 2015

oly 2, 2016

1. The sales contract concluded on April 20, 2015 between Nonparty OO Co., Ltd. (OOO, 2154-104) and the Defendant on the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 174,437,060.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 174,437,060 won with 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.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

(a) A sales contract for real estate stated in the attached list;

(1) On April 20, 2015, the OOO Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "OOO") entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell real estate listed in the separate list owned by the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as "the instant real estate") to 1.4 billion won (hereinafter referred to as "the instant sales contract"), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 24, 2015.

(2) The property of the non-party company has no particular property other than the instant real property.

(b) Formation of national tax claims;

On the date stated in the column of the date of establishment of the attached Table tax liability for the non-party company, there was liability for payment of value-added tax, corporate tax, and retirement income tax, such as the amount stated in

2. Determination

(a) Occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;

(1) The nature of the preserved claim;

“The date of establishment of the non-party company’s remaining tax liability (total 788,431,640 won) excluding value-added tax 13,139,970 won among national taxes indicated in attached Table 2015 is all prior to April 20, 2015, the date of the instant sales contract. As such, there was a claim for preservation at the time of the instant sales contract. It is necessary that in principle, claims protected by false obligee’s right of revocation have arisen prior to the act of fraudulent act. However, it is highly probable at the time of the fraudulent act, that there was a legal relationship which is already based on which the establishment of the claim is based, and that a claim is established in the near future. In fact, where a claim is established in the near future, such claim may also be the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation. It is highly probable that the reduction of the joint security by the obligor cannot be permitted from an equitable and moral point of view, and thus, it is not likely that it constitutes a legal relationship between the parties to the instant contract.

The market price of the instant real estate at the time of the instant sales contract is KRW 1,456,858,50, and the fact that the secured debt against the National Bank of Korea is KRW 1,282,421,440 as to the National Bank of Korea is considered as follows. The act of selling the instant real estate, the sole property of the non-party company, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor, barring special circumstances, and the intention of the non-party company's harming the Plaintiff is also acknowledged, and the Defendant's bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary.

Therefore, the Plaintiff may cancel the instant sales contract as a fraudulent act and seek restitution thereof to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the instant real estate was purchased to operate the factory without knowing the fact that the Plaintiff did not know of the tax arrears of the non-party company, and that the purchase of the instant real estate was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff would harm the Plaintiff

On the other hand, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant purchased the real estate of this case with the knowledge that it would harm the plaintiff as the creditor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, considering the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the arguments in the statements Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 9, the representative of the non-party company, namely, the non-party company's OO is a relationship between OO and the representative of the defendant company, and the non-party company received a notice of tax payment on the most amount of national taxes of this case on April 10, 2015. The non-party company entered into the sales contract of this case after 10 days from that date, and the appraisal price as of April 20, 2015 was 1,456,858,500 won, and purchased at a lower price of 1.4 billion won, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant also knew that the plaintiff's sales contract of this case was a creditor.

(b) Methods and scope of reinstatement;

In a case where a legal act regarding a certain real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, in principle, an order should be issued to restore the real estate itself, such as cancellation of ownership transfer registration. However, if a fraudulent act was committed with respect to real estate on which a mortgage is established, such fraudulent act shall be established only within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount of the mortgage from the value of the real estate. Therefore, if the registration of establishment of mortgage is cancelled by repayment, etc. after the fraudulent act, it would result in the cancellation of the fraudulent act and the restoration of the real estate itself to the extent that it would not be the common creditors’ joint security, and it would be against the fairness and fair order to cancel the fraudulent act and compensate the Plaintiff for damages within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount of the mortgage from the value of the real estate at issue. 40% after the fraudulent act, the amount of the mortgage claim at issue was set at KRW 40,500,000,000 for 20,000 won and KRW 47,000,000.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.