Donation of money is done with the knowledge that it would prejudice a tax payer to be exempted from a disposition of default on national taxes due to a default on national taxes.

The defendant also knew that the act of donation of money was done with the knowledge that it would prejudice the tax payer in order to be exempted from the disposition on default of national taxes due to the default of national taxes. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the money equivalent to the money stated in the attached list as the restoration of the original state, and the defendant is obligated to return it to the original state.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

2014 Gohap 53486 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Park AA

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

October 1, 2014

1. Revocation of each gift agreement entered in the separate sheet entered into between the Defendant and B.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff OOO and 5% interest per annum to the day of full payment from the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claim;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act);

Cheongwon of the Gu

1. Relationship between the parties;

At the time of the fraudulent act, the defendant is the spouse of the non-party B(OO-O-OOOOO, O also the non-party B(O-O-O-256-47) who is the delinquent at the time of the fraudulent act (A evidence 1B family relation certificate).

2. Formation of preserved claims;

(a) Circumstances of taxation;

This BB, on October 31, 2012, transferred OO-Eup OO-type 193-2, 193-18 (hereinafter referred to as "the instant real estate") to OOO-type 193-2, and paid without payment after scheduled return of capital gains tax on December 7, 2012, and the head of the Yangyang Tax Office determines and notifies the OOOO of capital gains tax as the payment deadline on February 28, 2013, but fails to pay the amount of arrears as of the date of filing. (Evidence 2) The amount of arrears as specified in Table 1 below is the amount of delinquent taxes as of the date of filing.

on July 10, 2014, the amount of national taxes in arrears at present on July 10, 2014

Items of Taxation

Reversion

Date of Notification

Deadline for payment

Notice Tax Amount

Amount in arrears

Transfer Income Tax

2012

February 1, 2013

February 28, 2013

OOO

OOO

B. Establishment of preserved claims

The notice of national tax against LeeB may be the preserved claim against the right to revoke the fraudulent act in accordance with the following legal principles regarding the establishment of the preserved claim after the date of the fraudulent act in this case.

In principle, it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation was created prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is high probability that at the time of a fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of a claim, and that the establishment of a claim would be based on such legal relationship in the near future, and where a claim has been established in the near future as a result of the realization of such probability, such claim may also become a preserved claim, and the legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of a claim shall not be limited to a legal relationship under an agreement between the parties, but shall be deemed to include a quasi-legal relationship, fact-finding, etc. with the probability of the establishment of the claim (Supreme Court Decision 20

On the other hand, capital gains tax on one's transfer margin is a tax paid by preliminary return, and the obligation for payment is abstractly established on the last day of the month in which the amount which is the tax base under Article 21 (2) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes occurs (the month in which the date of transfer of assets falls), and the time of transfer of assets

On November 2, 2012, 2012, the date of the instant fraudulent act, even though the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against B had not arisen, this case’s taxation claim was established on October 31, 2012, and this case’s taxation claim constitutes the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation, since the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against B was established by transferring the instant real property on October 31, 2012, and it was highly probable that the legal relationship was based on the near future legal relationship, and that the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against B was established by giving notice of transfer income tax to the Plaintiff on February 2013.

3. Occurrence of a fraudulent act;

The non-party B, who is a delinquent taxpayer, transferred the real estate in this case, paid the transfer income tax without scheduled return, and anticipated that the transfer income tax will be notified later, and then donated the real estate transfer proceeds to the defendant's account.

Of the purchase price of the instant real estate, the non-party 200 won of the down payment amount, the non-party 200 won of the sales price of the instant real estate was deposited by the OOO on September 25, 2012, and the OOOO on September 27, 2012, which was deposited by the non-party 200 won on September 25, 2012, and among these, it was deposited by the defendant ParkbA account (D Bank OO), the OOO on September 27, 2012, the OOO on September 27, 2012, and the OOO on September 27, 2012, the total sum of the OOO KRW 200,000,0000,0000,0000 for the cash donation account transfer and OO20,0000 won for the defendant 20,000 won.

In addition, on October 31, 2012, 2012, the instant real estate sales balance OOOE was deposited by the OOOOOE and the OOOOOE deposited in the Non-Party B’s account, and among which the Defendant ParkA’s account (FF bank OOOOOOO on November 1, 2012) donated cash by account transfer, and on November 2, 2012, OOOO and the Defendant ParkAAAAC account (OOOO in the GG securities account) transferred KRW OOOE to the Defendant Parkba account (OOOOOO in the GG securities account).

The non-party B donated the total amount of OOOO out of the instant real estate purchase price to Defendant BA in cash.

The details of this B’s donation to Defendant Park A are as shown in Table 2. (No. 3 of this case’s real estate register, No. 4 of this case’s real estate register, No. 5 of this case’s real estate register, No. 4 of this case’s real estate transaction statement, Gap evidence No. 5 of this case’s account submission

No. 2 of the Table 2 – omitted the details of donations made by Nonparty B to Defendant LA.

In the event that an obligor continues to dispose of several properties, it is necessary to judge whether each act causes insolvency, in principle, depending on whether each act causes insolvency. However, if there are special circumstances to regard the series of acts as a single act, it is necessary to determine whether the overall act is harmful as a whole. In this case, in determining whether there are such special circumstances, the other party to the disposition is the same, whether each disposition is close to the time, whether the other party is in a special relationship, and whether the other party and the debtor are in a special relationship, and the motive and opportunity of each disposition are the same. (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da7795 Decided July 22, 2005).

Therefore, the series of acts in which Nonparty B donated money listed in the separate sheet to Defendant LA from September 25, 2012 to November 2, 2012 by Nonparty B constitutes a standard for judgment of fraudulent act as a single act.

4. Reduction and excess of liability property;

On November 2, 2012, 2012, the date of the fraudulent act in this case, the active property of thisB was OOO, the passive property was in excess of the debt amount as OOOO, and the obligation was deepened by cash donation to the defendant (Evidence No. 6 through 7, the real estate appraisal documents of this case, the evidence No. 8, the National Tax Service D/B of this case, the evidence No. 9, and the evidence No. 2 of this case).

Classification

Types

Amount (won)

Jinay

Active Property

Land (OO also OOO-dong 648-2)

OOO

A No. 6

Land (OOdo OO-dong 256-47)

OOO

A No. 7

Sub-committees

OOO

Petty Property

Government bonds and local taxes

OOO

A No. 2

Loans (GG Bank collateral security obligations)

OOO

A No. 9

Sub-committees

OOO

Excess of Debt

△OOO

5. The intention of an injury.

The non-party B, after the transfer of the instant real property and the receipt of the high amount of transfer proceeds, knew that the donation of the total amount of OOOO to the defendant with a special relationship would later be made for the purpose of evading the transfer income tax, thereby undermining the plaintiff, who is a tax claim.

6. Bad faith of the defendant

The defendant should be deemed to have known of the status of excess of debt of the BB at the time of donation to the spouse of the BB, the fact that the donation was fraudulent and that the act of donation was fraudulent, and the intention of the BB's deliberation.

7. The date on which he becomes aware of a fraudulent act;

As such, the fact that thisB donated cash to the Defendant was known during the process of tracking and investigating the BB’s transfer proceeds to the Defendant on July 16, 2013 upon receipt of the response to the request for financial transaction information from theCC Bank on July 16, 2013 (Evidence A No. 9).

8. Value compensation.

In light of the above facts, this act of donation of the money listed in the attached list between BB and the defendant was known to the defendant that it would cause damage to the taxation right holder in order to be exempted from the disposition of default on national taxes, and thus, the defendant also sought revocation of the objection pursuant to Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 406 of the Civil Act, and the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the money equivalent to the money listed in the attached list received from BB as the restoration of the original state is due to the use and use of the donated money by the defendant. However, the plaintiff is entitled to seek compensation for the value equivalent to the amount of the plaintiff's claim, such as the purport of the claim.