Since a sales contract causes insolvency, it constitutes a fraudulent act.

Since the debtor has caused insolvency by completing the registration of ownership transfer of real estate, which is the only property of the debtor, the sales contract is a fraudulent act.

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

2013 Ghana 74731 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

literatureA

September 13, 2013

October 25, 2013

1. The purchase and sale contract on October 17, 2008 between the defendant and the non-party 1B is revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the real estate listed in the attached list to the non-party DoB.

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

Cheong-gu Office

This is the same as the disposition (the plaintiff is entitled to the procedure of ownership transfer registration due to the cancellation of fraudulent act, and it is obvious that it is based on the true name recovery in light of the purport of the entire pleadings).

1. Facts without dispute;

A. On February 4, 2008, 2008, the non-party LB transferred OB to the Korea Industrial Complex Corporation of the non-party 2000 m2 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 200 m2 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 200 m2) the non-party 20 m2 to OO.

B. On November 17, 2008, No. 102693 received on November 17, 2008, NoB completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the Defendant, which was based on the purchase and sale (hereinafter “the sales contract of this case”) with the Changwon District Court Kimhae registry Office, the Changwon District Court, OO 32-15, 3274 square meters (hereinafter “the real estate of this case”), the only property of which was OB, was the Defendant, and the Defendant is the joint owner of LBB.

C. On December 1, 2009, the Plaintiff notified the doorB of the decision of correction on the aggregate of the transfer income tax on the real estate stated in the above paragraph (a) above and the transfer income tax on the instant real estate (the aggregate of the transfer income tax base and the transfer income tax base) but the doorB did not pay it and the amount of delinquent tax on the doorB including the additional dues as of the completion of the pleadings is the OOB.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

With respect to the instant lawsuit for which the Plaintiff asserted that the instant sales contract was a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, and for which the revocation and restitution is sought, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed, since the Plaintiff was aware of at least the intention of the Plaintiff’s death on April 2, 2009 or December 1, 2009, and thus, the instant lawsuit for which the exclusion period of one year has elapsed thereafter.

However, the date when a creditor, who is the starting point of the exclusion period, becomes aware of the cause for revocation in the exercise of the creditor's right of revocation, is insufficient to simply recognize the fact that the debtor performed an act of disposal of property, and further, it is required to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that the debtor had an intent to commit a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102, Mar. 26, 2009). However, there is no evidence suggesting that the plaintiff could have known that the contract of this case was fraudulent around 209, and rather, according to the statements in the evidence Nos. 6, 7, and evidence, the fact that the employee of the Busan Busan regional information center of the Plaintiff affiliated with the Busan regional tax office was aware of the fact that the fraudulent act was committed only after obtaining a family relation certificate that the defendant was South. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The assertion and judgment

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, upon the transfer of the instant real estate by the doorB, the liability to pay capital gains tax was established on or around February 29, 2008 pursuant to Article 21(2)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. While the doorB is highly probable to notify the high amount of capital gains tax in the near future, the doorB caused insolvent by entering into the instant sales contract with the Defendant, who is the only property owned by himself/herself, and completing the registration of transfer of ownership in the name or title, the instant sales contract shall be deemed to be a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, and it is presumed that the Defendant, the beneficiary, will be a beneficiary.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant's father and wife died due to traffic accident, and the defendant properly purchased the real estate of this case with the purchase fund, and that he did not know about the property status of the doorB at the time of the contract of this case.

However, if the defendant asserts, it is difficult to reverse the defendant's presumption of bad faith, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the defendant's good faith, in light of the fact that the doorB could have sufficiently paid capital gains tax from the purchase price received from the defendant, and that the doorB and the defendant are the remaining wholesalers.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the instant sales contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act. According to the evidence No. 3, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of the third party after the instant sales contract was completed on April 13, 2009, which was the date of the instant sales contract, and as a result, the Plaintiff seeking compensation for the equivalent value as restitution following the revocation of the fraudulent act. However, when the creditor seeks restitution following the revocation of the fraudulent act, even though the third party after the fraudulent act is able to seek compensation against the beneficiary by acquiring the right, such as mortgage, on the subject matter, against the beneficiary instead of the return of the original object, the creditor itself is also allowed to seek compensation for the return of the original object (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da57139, Feb. 9, 2001).

As for restitution following the revocation of fraudulent act, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant real estate due to the restoration of the authentic name as sought by the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.