It constitutes a fraudulent act to transfer property at a low price or free of charge in excess of obligations.

It is reasonable to view that transferring unlisted stocks at a low price in excess of debt constitutes a fraudulent act and that the delinquent taxpayer is aware that it would prejudice the general creditors, and that the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed to have been presumed.

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

2016 Ghana 50513 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AA and 1

October 5, 2016

November 30, 2016

1. As to 1,500 shares issued by BB, a corporation:

A. Revocation of a share transfer agreement concluded on November 2, 201 between Defendant AA and CCC;

B. Defendant AA shall implement the transfer procedure on the ground of restitution due to revocation of fraudulent act to CCC.

2. As to 2,500 shares issued by BB, a corporation:

A. Revocation of a stock transfer agreement concluded on November 2, 201 between Defendant DD and CCC;

B. Defendant DD implements the transfer procedure based on CCC’s revocation of fraudulent act to the effect that the transfer procedure is based on restitution.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The head of the FF Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control designated CCC, an oligopolistic shareholder, as the secondary tax obligor, for value-added 3 cases of GGGG Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “GGG”), KRW 219,477,510 as listed below, and notified the CCC to pay it.

B. On November 2, 2011, CCC transferred 1,500 shares issued by BBB owned by it to Defendant AA and transferred 2,500 shares issued by it to Defendant DD respectively (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”), and changed the name of the said shares to the Defendants, respectively.

C. Defendant AA is a woman of CCC, and Defendant DD is a home owner.

D. At the time of the instant transfer agreement, CCC was in excess of its obligation with positive property exceeding its positive property.

E. The GGG had defaulted on April 6, 2012.

F. Around March 2015, the Defendants were subject to each gift tax on the grounds that the instant transfer contract constitutes low price acquisition by the HH Tax Office.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Formation of preserved claims

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle, it is highly probable that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that serve as the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future. In the near future, where the probability of the claim has been realized and the claim has been created in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da53173, Aug. 19, 2005

In light of the above legal principles, the second tax liability for the Plaintiff was not established at the time of the instant transfer contract, but the second tax liability for the Plaintiff was already established in February 201 for the GGGG, and at that time the CCC was an oligopolistic shareholder of the GGG. Accordingly, there was a high probability that the legal relationship, which forms the basis for establishing the Plaintiff’s value-added tax claim for the CCC, was established, and as at that time, the financial status of the GGG was not good, the secondary tax liability for the CCC would be imposed in the near future. In fact, since the GGGG was unable to pay value-added tax, and the Plaintiff’s tax claim against the CCC was in arrears more than five months after the date of the instant transfer contract, and the Plaintiff’s tax claim against the CCC. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against the CCC could be the preserved right of revocation.

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

As seen earlier, the fact that CCC transferred the above shares at a low price with excess of its liabilities to the Defendants is reasonable to deem that the instant transfer agreement resulted in the reduction of liability assets offered by the general creditors as joint collateral of CCC, and thus constitutes a fraudulent act and that CCC, a debtor, constitutes a fraudulent act, and thereby, the Defendants, a beneficiary, is presumed to have acted in bad faith.

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

1) Defendant DDR asserts that CCC borrowed money from DDR to bear the loan obligation, but transferred the above stocks to DDR, thereby paying the above loan obligation in kind, and therefore, the instant transfer contract does not constitute a fraudulent act.

In light of the relationship between the CCC and DD, and the fact that DD is a home owner, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that DD lent money to CCC only with the statement of No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2) The Defendants asserted that the CCC was not in a state of excess of the obligation at the time of the instant transfer agreement, but it is insufficient to reverse the facts found earlier only with the statement of No. 3-1. Therefore, the said assertion is without merit.

3) The Defendants: (a) imposed gift tax on the instant transfer contract on the ground that the instant transfer contract constitutes a gift; (b) and (c) asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the revocation of the instant transfer contract is in violation of the prohibition of speech; (c) however, since the imposition of gift tax and the claim for revocation of fraudulent act are different systems from the purpose, requirements, and effect of the claim for revocation of gift tax are different, the instant claim alone cannot be deemed to have violated the prohibition of speech.

(d) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Therefore, the transfer contract of this case must be cancelled as a fraudulent act, and to restore to its original state, Defendant AAA is obligated to implement each transfer procedure with respect to 1,500 shares issued by BB, and Defendant DD is obligated to implement each transfer procedure with respect to 2,500 shares issued by BB.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.