The agreement on division of the inherited property of this case constitutes a fraudulent act.

Since 3/9 shares of each real estate at the time of the consultation on division of inherited property can be recognized as having been the only property of the ChoB, the above consultation on division of inherited property constitutes a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances.

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

2016 Ghana 109246 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Park AA

April 14, 2017

April 28, 2017

1. (a) The agreement on the division of inherited property concluded on October 2, 2013 with respect to 3/9 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and ChoB shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 15,137,920.

B. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15,137,920 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case is finalized to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

With respect to 1/3 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the agreement on the division of inherited property concluded on October 2, 2013 between the defendant and the ChoB shall be revoked, and the defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the transfer of ownership, which was completed on February 2, 2016 by the CCC District Court DD Registry No. 1331.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 31, 2009, the ChoB transferred FF 283, FF 283, 127, and 2002, but did not file a preliminary return of capital gains tax. Accordingly, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the time limit for payment on January 1, 201, the due date for payment was determined and notified 8,650,410 capital gains tax for the year 2009, which was January 31, 2011. As of May 2, 2016, the amount of the capital gains tax claim as of May 2, 2016, including additional tax, is KRW 15,137,920, including the amount of the capital gains tax claim as of May 2, 2016.

B. ParkG died on October 2, 2013, and the Defendant, ParkJ and Park H, who is his spouse, jointly inherited the property of ParkG (the share of inheritance shall be 2B3/9 shares, 2/9 shares of children, ).

C. On October 2, 2013, ChoB, the Defendant, Park J, Park J, and Park H H agreed on the division of inherited property solely inherited by the Defendant with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet. Accordingly, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the agreement on division of inherited property under the CCC District Court DDR No. 1331 as of February 2, 2016.

D. The total market price of each of the above real estate is approximately KRW 296,380,360. A total of the market price of each of the above real estate is approximately KRW 98,793,453 (turb) if the share of 3/9, which is the share of inheritance of the ChoB, is multiplied by the share of 3/9. At the time of the consultation on the division of the above real estate, the mortgage, etc. on each of the above real estate was not established, and the attached Form on February

As to the real estate stipulated in paragraph (1) of the list, the right to collateral security was established under the name of the debtor, the maximum debt amount of the defendant, the maximum debt amount of 42,000,000 won, and on March 30, 2016, the joint collateral security was established with respect to each of the above real estate in the name of yellow Dust, the debtor, the maximum debt amount of which is KRW 300,00

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap 1 through 4, 6, Eul 1, 9-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

According to the basic facts, the plaintiff's claim for capital gains tax against ChoB shall be subject to the division of the above inherited property.

It is the preserved claim of the right to revoke the fraudulent act that has been previously incurred.

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

1) Relevant legal principles

A) In principle, where the debtor continuously disposes of several properties, each act

Although it is necessary to judge whether a series of acts is insolvent or not, if there are special circumstances that can be seen as a single act, it shall be determined comprehensively by taking into account whether the other party to the disposition is identical to the other party to the disposition, whether each disposition is close to time, whether the other party and the debtor are specially related, and whether the motive or opportunity of each disposition is identical (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da34740, Mar. 27, 2014).

B) Division consultation on inherited property has commenced and the co-inheritors became a provisional co-inheritors

In light of the nature of confirming the ownership of inherited property by means of the sole ownership of, or the performance into, a new co-ownership of inherited property by, all or part of the inherited property of each inheritor, and thus, it is subject to the exercise of the right to revoke a fraudulent act. Meanwhile, the debtor's act of selling real estate, which is one of his/her sole property, and replacing it with money easily consumed or transferring it to another person without compensation, becomes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring any special circumstance. Thus, in cases where a debtor in excess of his/her obligation has reduced joint security against the general creditor by giving up his/her right to the inherited property upon consultation on division of the inherited property, it constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor in principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001). In such cases, the debtor's intent of deception is presumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200

(ii) review;

A) Although the subject of the foregoing agreement on the division of inherited property is a separate real estate, it appears that the date of conclusion and the parties are the same, and that the motive of the disposition is also the same. As such, since the above agreement on the division of inherited property constitutes a special circumstance that can be seen as a single act, it should be determined as a whole whether such agreement

B) According to the purport of evidence No. 5, and the entire pleadings, at the time of the agreement on division of the above inherited property

Unless there are special circumstances, the agreement on the division of inherited property constitutes a fraudulent act, and the intention of the ChoBB, the debtor, is presumed to be the fraudulent act.

C. As to the defendant's argument

Although the Defendant alleged to the effect that he did not know that he would prejudice the obligee at the time of the agreement on the division of inherited property, in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a fraudulent act, the Defendant is responsible to prove that he was bona fide to the beneficiary in the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the fraudulent act, and in recognizing that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, the evidence, etc. supporting that the debtor was bona fide by the beneficiary should be based on objective and acceptable evidence, and only on the unilateral statement of the debtor or the beneficiary or a statement that is merely a third party’s trend, etc., the Defendant cannot readily conclude that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da237192, Jun. 11, 2015). The evidence submitted by the Defendant cannot be deemed to be a bona fide beneficiary, and

(d) Scope of revocation of fraudulent act and methods of reinstatement;

In principle, restitution following the revocation of fraudulent act shall be based on the return of the original property, i.e., the return of the original property, and in cases where the return of the original property is impossible or considerably difficult, compensation for value shall be granted. Here, “the cases where the return of the original property is impossible or considerably difficult” refers to cases where the creditor cannot expect the realization of the performance from the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser in light of the social experience rules or the concept of transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da58316, May 15, 1998) instead of cases where the return of the original property is not simply absolute or physically impossible, but rather where the creditor is unable to expect the realization of the performance from the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da58316, May 15, 1998). In light of the foregoing, the right to collateral security under the name of Seoul U.S. Cooperative or Yellow Dust is established after the division of the inherited property among each of the above real

Furthermore, with respect to the scope of revocation and equivalent compensation, the amount of compensation is limited to ① the amount of creditor's preserved claim, ② the amount of joint collateral of the object, ③ the amount of the Plaintiff's transfer income tax claim 15,137,920 out of the profits acquired by the beneficiary and the beneficiary. Facts that the market price of 3/9 of the above real estate was about 98,793,453 out of the above real estate as of the date of the consultation on the division of inherited property, etc. are about 98,793,453, and it is reasonable to view that the above agreement on the division of inherited property is the profits acquired by the Defendant who is the beneficiary of 3/9 of the market price of the above real estate. Thus, the agreement on the division of inherited property should be revoked within the limit of KRW 15,137,920, which is the smaller amount between the amount of the Plaintiff's preserved claim, the amount of the jointly secured property and the profits acquired by the Defendant, and the Defendant shall pay damages to the Plaintiff at the rate of 5%.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is groundless.

-