Tax claims shall not be deemed a fraudulent act due to the occurrence of a business agreement after the preparation of the business agreement.

It is nothing more than that the trust contract is implemented by the business agreement and the contract for transfer and takeover, and all the plaintiff's taxation claims are prepared by the above business agreement and the contract for transfer and takeover.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2011 Gohap 11692 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AAA Real Estate Trust Corporation

March 18, 2012

March 27, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The real estate trust contract concluded on February 4, 2009 between Defendant AAA real estate trust company and KimB is revoked. The Defendant will implement the procedure for the registration cancellation of the former registration to the Plaintiff, which was completed on February 4, 2009 by the Suwon District Court Anyang Registry of the Republic of Korea with respect to the movable properties listed in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff has the following taxation rights against KimB.

B. KimB is the implementer of the new building site of the building site of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") and the co-owner of the building site of this case (hereinafter referred to as KimBB, KimDD, the registration of the preservation of ownership of the building of this case was completed on February 4, 2009, after the completion of the new construction of the building of this case, at the same time with KimD, at the time of Ansan-gu OBO 000-0 OB of the building of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case"). In addition, after the registration of the preservation of ownership of the building of this case was completed, KimB completed the registration of the trust with 16 households among the building of this case (hereinafter referred to as "registration of this case" of this case, and

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The KimB has entrusted the above 16-year ownership shares (real estate stated in the attached list) to the defendant, which is the only property of KimB in excess of the debt. The trust act of this case should be instituted as a fraudulent act, and the trust registration of this case should be cancelled due to restitution to the original state.

B. Whether the trust act of this case was fraudulent

1) Facts of recognition

① On April 26, 2005, the building site of this case was owned by thisGG, KimE, and Lee R, and was owned by two other than the aboveGG, and was planned to construct a main complex building on the above land, but was not implemented due to financial reasons, and two other than thisGG agreed to transfer all the rights relating to the above land and building permission to KimD and KimB.

② On December 15, 2006, KimD and KimB paid 4 billion won to two persons, including thisGG, from the HHHH Savings Bank (hereinafter “HHHH”), and received the registration of ownership transfer on the said land on the same day.

③ At the time of the instant loan from HHH, the instant construction company: (a) concluded a new construction agreement stipulating the outlines of the construction of the instant building; (b) loan repayment; (c) construction; (d) sale in lots; and (e) management of funds; and (e) notarized, Article 3(1)8 and Article 3(1)10 of the said agreement entrusts KimB with the trust company designated by HHHH; (b) the instant building also imposes upon the trust company designated by the HHHHHHH’s preservation registration at the time of completion of the construction; and (c) Article 25 of the said agreement imposes upon KimB any of the following obligations: (a) the date of completion of the construction of the instant building; (b) the date of completion of the construction; (c) the date of completion of the construction of the instant building; (d) the date of completion of the construction and the date of completion of the construction; and (d) the date of completion of the construction and the date of completion of the construction under the name of Kim-B’s trust agreement and any of title 20.

⑤ On December 15, 2006, the registration of ownership transfer on the site of the instant building was made in the name of KimD and KimB, and immediately after the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of KimD and KimB, the registration of trust was made in the name of the trustee for the Defendant. On the same day, the Defendant issued to HHH a first priority certificate with the content of KRW 5.2 billion in the amount of the deed and KRW 00-00,000 in the name of the trust property, and KRW 00-0 in the name of the OO-dong and

④ On February 4, 2009, the registration of preservation of ownership on the instant building was made in the name of KimD and KimB, and the Defendant issued the first priority beneficiary right certificate with the content that the registration of the instant trust was made on February 5, 2009, the amount of KRW 6.49 billion in the amount of the deed, KRW 000,000,000 won in the name of the trust real estate real estate real name real name real name real name real name real name real name real name real name real name real name real name real name real estate real name real name real name

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2) The following facts or circumstances revealed in light of the facts and the facts acknowledged earlier, namely, KimB, concluded with HHH on December 15, 2006, and pursuant to the business agreement and the transfer and takeover contract, it appears that the Defendant had already been obligated to trust the instant building to the Defendant, a trust company designated by HHHHH. Therefore, this case’s trust act is nothing more than that of the performance of the obligation already borne by KimB under the above business agreement and the transfer and takeover contract. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim in this case was all made after December 15, 2006, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s taxation claim in this case did not appear to have met the requirements for a fraudulent act’s secured claim, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s act of trust in this case did not appear to have fulfilled its function as a loan or a loan provided by HHHB to the Plaintiff for the purpose of 200 HHHB’s loan from the Plaintiff’s 201.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.