It is reasonable to view that the Defendants knew of the insolvency of the defaulted taxpayer.

The defendants asserted that a bona fide beneficiary or a subsequent purchaser received money as a repayment from the delinquent taxpayer, but it is reasonable to view that they knew of the insolvency situation of the delinquent taxpayer at the time of receiving the money.

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

2017 Ghana 104931 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Daa-3

2018.011

2018.02.01

1. The gift agreement concluded on March 11, 2014 with respect to KRW 142,300,000 between Nonparty Parks and Defendant Parkdd shall be revoked.

2. The Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff 35,300,000 won, Defendant Daa to KRW 87,000,000, Defendant Jgg to KRW 20,000,000, and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this decision became final to the day of full payment.

3. The monetary payment of KRW 35,000,000 between Nonparty Gabs and Defendant Parkff is revoked on May 13, 2014.

4. Defendant Park Jae-ff shall pay to the Plaintiff 35,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

5. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

This is the same as the order (the plaintiff stated that the payment of money in Paragraph 3 of the Disposition is a donation and indicated as a "donation contract", and the conclusion is not different depending on the legal nature of the contract, so it is indicated only as a "money payment" in this decision).

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant Park Dod and Park fff are children of Nonparty Park Gas. Defendant Park Dod married with Defendant Shin on January 23, 1989. Defendant Jg is the mother of Defendant Jaag.

B. Non-party Parkss and Defendant Parkdd’s rest area operated ‘qq parking lot', and Defendant Shin-a operated ‘qqq restaurant' at the said rest area along with Defendant Parkdd’. The said rest area and restaurant operation was lost and closed in April 2007. Defendant Parkd and Newa shared consultations on the grounds of ‘economic situation’ on November 15, 2006.

C. At the time of January 31, 2015, Nonparty Gau (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned the instant real estate in Daegu Metropolitan City uu (hereinafter “Uu”), but there was no other peculiar property. On February 1, 2014, Parks sold the instant real estate in KRW 650,000,000, and did not file a preliminary return on capital gains tax. Accordingly, on January 2, 2015, thet head of the tax office notified Parks that KRW 235,143,102 of capital gains tax to Parks on January 31, 2015, but the current amount of delinquent tax of Parks reaches KRW 309,918,430, including the increased amount of capital gains tax, as Parks did not pay the capital gains tax notified.

D. Around March 11, 2014, Parks donated KRW 142,300,000,000, out of the money received as the remainder for the sale and purchase of the instant real estate to Defendant Gams (hereinafter “the instant donation”). Defendant Gams paid KRW 87,00,000 to Defendant Gamsa on March 12, 2014, and through Defendant Gamsa, paid KRW 20,000,000 to Defendant Jgg, and owned the remainder KRW 35,30,000,000 (the KRW 10,000,000,000 was deposited in the account in the name of Newa opened by Defendant Newsa).

E. Around May 13, 2014, Parks paid KRW 35,000,000, out of the money paid to Defendant Parkff as the remainder for the sale and purchase of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant payment”).

[Based on recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, the witness testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;

A. Establishment of fraudulent act

1) According to the above facts, the money paid to Defendant Parkd and Defendant Parkfff by the instant donation and the instant payment can be deemed to have been the entire property owned by stuffs. Thus, the instant donation and the instant payment constitute a fraudulent act that harms the Plaintiff, who is a tax payer, who is in a position to be paid prior to a general creditor. Moreover, the bad faith of Defendant Parkd and Defendant Shin Aa and Jg, who is the beneficiary of the instant donation, and the subsequent purchaser, is presumed to be the beneficiary of the instant payment, and the bad faith of Defendant Parkfff, who is the beneficiary of the instant payment, is presumed to be the beneficiary of the instant payment.

2) Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the instant donation and the instant payment should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

B. Determination as to Defendant Newa, Jg, andff’s assertion

1) Defendant Ga asserts that it was a bona fide purchaser, inasmuch as Defendant Ga received money as compensation for solatium and child support from Defendant Gadddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

2) 피고 진gg는, 피고 신aa의 위 주장과 마찬가지로, 위 돈의 출처와 박ss의 무자력을 알지 못했고, 사망한 남편이 생전에 딸 부부에게 빌려 준 돈 2000만 원을 변제받은 것이므로, 선의의 전득자라고 주장한다. 살피건대, 을가 제6호증의 1의 기재에 의하면 피고 진gg 부부가 2000년도 이전에 피고 신aa 부부에게 2000만 원을 지급한 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 그러나 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고 신aa은 박ss이 재산을 처분하여 피고 박dd에게 준 것이라는 사실을 알 수 있었고, 피고 진gg 역시 피고 신aa을 통하여 사돈 댁과 딸 부부의 사업실패와 재산상태를 알고 있었다고 보는 것이 합당하므로, 피고 진gg도 받은 돈이 박ss이 재산을 처분하여 피고 박dd에게 준 것이라는 사실을 알 수 있었다고 판단된다. 이에 반하는 취지의 증인 신pp의 증언은 믿기 어렵고, 위와 같이 2000만 원을 지급한 사실만으로 피고 진gg의 선의를 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 입증하기에 충분한 증거가 없다.

3) Defendant Parkff claimed that he was paid KRW 2 million among the money that he lent to Parks, and KRW 1.5 million was deposited to use for the medical expenses of Parks, and thus, he is a bona fide beneficiary. According to the evidence No. 4, part of the money that he received as the instant payment may be recognized as having been used for the medical expenses and funeral expenses of Defendant Parks. However, this fact alone cannot be recognized. Defendant Parkff’s good faith is not recognized. Rather, Defendant Parkf is determined that he was aware of the fact that the said money was the proceeds of disposing of the forest of this case as his children, and that he was the insolvent of Parks caused by the instant forest disposition and the instant payment, and there is no other evidence to prove Defendant Parkfff’s good faith.

4) The Defendants’ good faith assertion is without merit.

3. Scope of reinstatement;

A. The Plaintiff may claim restitution of the purchase price of the instant real estate acquired by the Defendants within the scope of KRW 309,918,430 due to restitution following the revocation of fraudulent act.

B. Therefore, among the 142,300,000 won received as the gift of this case, Defendant D’s 35,300,000 won for the Plaintiff, Defendant D’s 87,000,000 won for Defendant Jing, Defendant Jing’s 20,000,000 won for Defendant D’s 35,000,000 won for the payment of this case, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 54% per annum from the day following the date this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted.