tax claims are anticipated to have been created and constitute a fraudulent act made in excess of obligations.

Transfer income tax claims have already been established in legal relations that form the basis of the occurrence of claims to sell real estate to another person, and it is highly probable that transfer income tax claims would occur when transfer of real estate, and it is highly probable that transfer income tax claims would occur, and in case of gift of his own property under excess of obligations, it constitutes general fraudulent act.

2012 Ghana 5885 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

IsaA

May 30, 2012

June 20, 2012

1. Revocation of a gift agreement concluded on July 4, 201 between the Defendant and the BB.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following 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.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Plaintiff’s transfer income tax claim

1) On May 13, 201, 201, B transferred 4,370 square meters and its ground buildings to GG resources Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate,” and “the instant sales”).

2) On September 9, 201, the Director of the Ansan Tax Office issued a notice of the transfer income tax on the transfer of the instant real estate to this B on KRW 000,000, and the said B paid KRW 000 among this, and as of the closing date of the pleadings in this case, the transfer income tax amount in arrears by this B as of the closing date of the pleadings in this case is KRW 0

(b) donations to the Defendant of thisB;

1) The Defendant is a father and wife of thisB.

2) ThisB received the balance of the instant trade, and, on July 4, 201, deposited 100 million won in the Defendant’s account, and donated it to the Defendant.

(c) the insolvency of the BB;

B had active property of the instant real estate and OO apartment 00 00 000 000 000 000 o-dong O-dong O-dong in Ansan-gu, Annyang-si, and on July 4, 201, the market price of the above O apartment as of July 4, 201, where BB donated 00 won to the Defendant, was KRW 000, and the deposit balance was KRW 000, and was in excess of KRW 000,000, compared to KRW 00.

[Based on recognition] Each entry of Gap 1 through 6 (including the number of branches), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

In principle, a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation should have arisen before a juristic act for the purpose of property rights with the knowledge that the obligor would prejudice the obligee. However, there is a high probability that the legal relationship which has already been established at the time of the juristic act, and that the claim would have been created in the future, and that the probability has been realized in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim for the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001). According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax on the transfer of real estate in this case was established in the legal relationship that the obligor agreed to sell the real estate in this case to another person on May 201, and it is highly probable that the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax was created at the time of the transfer of the real estate in this case, and that the obligee’s transfer income tax would have no reason to prove that the subsequent purchaser’s transfer income tax was paid to another person in bad faith or bad faith.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the above contract of gift between the defendant and the LeeB should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 00 won and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and accepted.