In order for the taxation disposition, which is a preserved bond, to be null and void as a matter of course, it must be objectively clear that the defect was in violation of important laws and regulations.

In a case where there are objective reasons to believe that the defect is serious and clear, and any legal or factual relation which is not subject to taxation is subject to taxation, if it can be clarified by accurately investigating the facts, it cannot be said that it is apparent that the defect is serious even if it is serious.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation, etc.

2013 Ghana 31560 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

1.A 2. SexualB 3. SexualCC

October 18, 2013

November 15, 2013

1. Non-party DaD branch

(a) concluded on October 6, 2010 with respect to the real estate listed in the Schedule 1 attached hereto between Defendant A;

B. On October 13, 2010, concluded on October 13, 201 with respect to the real estate listed in Schedule 2 attached hereto between Defendant Lee Dong-A;

C. On October 6, 2010, concluded on October 6, 2010 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet 3 between Defendant SungB;

D. On October 6, 2010, concluded on October 6, 2010 with respect to the real property listed in the separate sheet 4 between Defendant SungB and SungCC:

Each gift contract shall be revoked.

2. To the above DaD:

(a) Defendant A: (a) the registration of transfer of ownership completed on October 11, 2010 by Changwon District Court (Hawon District Court Hawon District Court Hadong Branch Office) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1;

B. Defendant Lee Dong-A shall register the transfer of ownership, which was completed on October 15, 2010 by receipt No. 16956, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2;

C. Defendant SungB: (a) the ownership transfer registration completed under No. 16605 of the receipt of October 11, 2010 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet 3;

D. Defendant SungB and SungCC shall register transfer of ownership completed under No. 16604 of receipt on October 11, 2010 with respect to shares of 1/2 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 4;

E. Defendant Lee Dong-A shall register the transfer of ownership, which was completed on March 29, 2013 by the receipt No. 5726, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 4;

Each cancellation registration procedure shall be implemented.

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 plaintiff's establishment of a claim against the non-party DaD (hereinafter referred to as "non-party Dang").

1) On June 30, 201, the head of the Jinju Tax Office under the Plaintiff-based tax office notified the Nonparty of the determination of KRW 7 OOO on June 30, 201, KRW 4 OOO on January 31, 201, KRW 1 value-added tax payment period on November 30, 201, and KRW 1 OOOO on November 30, 201. As of the date of closing the argument in this case, the details of the non-party’s delinquent tax amount against the Plaintiff are as follows.

See Table 3 of the Court Decision

B. Property legal act between the Nonparty and the Defendants

On October 6, 2010, the Nonparty donated the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to Defendant Lee Dong-B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 1606 on October 11, 2010. On October 13, 2010, the Nonparty donated the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 16956 on October 15, 2010, the Nonparty donated the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 to Defendant SungB on October 6, 2010, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 11, 201, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the registration office No. 1605 on October 11, 201, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the above list No. 3601 on October 31, 201, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the registration office No. 303B on October 16, 2014.

C. The Nonparty’s property details at the time of the above property legal act

At the time when the Nonparty, as seen above, engaged in a property legal act with the Defendants, there was real estate of this case equivalent to the Nonparty’s active property, and there was an OO of the tax liability against the Plaintiff as a passive property.

D. The relationship between the Nonparty and the Defendants

ThisA is the Nonparty’s wife, and the remainder is the Nonparty’s children.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including the number of each branch), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

In order for a taxation disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient, and its defect must be objectively and objectively obvious. In determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for the pertinent taxation, should be examined from a teleological perspective as well as reasonable consideration on the specificity of the specific case itself. In addition, a taxation disposition against a person who does not have any legal relation or factual relation (income or act) which is subject to taxation, should be serious and obvious, but if objective circumstances exist that make it possible to mislead him/her of any legal relation or factual relation which is not subject to taxation, which is not subject to taxation, to be subject to taxation, it cannot be said that it is apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be said that the taxation disposition is null and void as a matter of course, which misleads the fact of taxation (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu10862, Nov. 27, 190).

The Defendants asserted to the effect that there is no tax claim against the Nonparty. However, even according to the Defendants’ assertion, the Nonparty did business on the construction site and distributed the benefits received to other daily workers. Thus, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that there was no factual basis subject to taxation, and the Nonparty did not have been engaged in the construction business before the towing. As recognized by the Defendants, the Nonparty seems to have distributed the benefits in cash to the daily workers. As the Defendants acknowledged, even if the Nonparty did not have a domestic contractor during the taxable period for which the tax disposition was issued, it is deemed that there was an objective reason to believe that the Plaintiff would be subject to taxation, and the Nonparty did not have any grounds to believe that there was no objection against the Plaintiff’s tax disposition or that there was no other grounds to deem that the said tax disposition was invalid or invalid. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s tax claim against the Nonparty is valid.

In addition, as recognized earlier, the time for establishing the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against the Nonparty is recognized to have been transferred by a property legal act between the Nonparty and the Defendants, and the Plaintiff’s above taxation claim against the Nonparty becomes the preserved claim in the revocation of the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act.

(b) Fraudulent act;

As seen earlier, the Nonparty was insolvent at the time of performing a legal act with the Defendants as well as property, and the Nonparty’s donation to the Defendants of the instant real estate, which is the sole property owned by himself under insolvent, constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, a creditor, barring special circumstances. The Defendants’ bad faith, a beneficiary or subsequent purchaser, is presumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001).

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

The Defendants asserted that the non-party’s donation of the instant real estate to the Defendants was only a donation of the instant real estate in good faith and there was no intention of harming the non-party, because the health of the non-party becomes worse due to various diseases at the time, and the Defendant SungCC resided together with the non-party, and the non-party was in the salary for the Defendant. The Defendants asserted that the non-party was a donation of the instant real estate in good faith, and that the non-party had no intention of harming.

According to the evidence evidence No. 4, even though Defendant SCC had resided with the temporary non-party from March 3, 2009 to March 24, 2011, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that Defendant SCC was frighting to the non-party. The evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendants was a considerable reason to receive the gift of the instant real estate, and there is no other evidence to reverse the Defendants’ bad faith presumption. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.