Dispositions for transfer registration of ownership for the purpose of evading national taxes in arrears shall be revoked.

The ownership transfer registration of this case was performed with the knowledge that it would prejudice a taxation right holder in order to be exempted from a disposition of seizure, etc. due to a default of national taxes, and the defendants also knew of such fact. Thus, the defendants are obligated to perform the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration made with respect to the real estate

2013 Ghana 30836 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

1.A 2.B Development Corporation

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

August 22, 2013

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding the revocation of the reservation for trade concluded on February 14, 2012 between the Defendants regarding the real estate indicated in the separate sheet shall be dismissed.

2. A. The gift agreement entered into on February 14, 2012 between Defendant Jeong-A and Non-Party KimCC (A. 7 January 1958) with respect to real estate stated in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

B. Nonparty KimCC (SCC January 7, 1958) is responsible for real estate listed in the separate sheet, and Defendant Jung-A is responsible for the registration of transfer of ownership completed on February 16, 2012 as the receipt of No. 7893 for the Chuncheon District Court's original branch court's original branch court's Chuncheon District Court's original branch court, and Defendant BB development corporation will implement each procedure for registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership, which completed under Article 7894 on the same day

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

Cheong-gu Office

The reservation entered into on February 14, 2012 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet between the Defendants and Paragraph 2 of this Article shall be revoked.

1. Rejection part

No legal act between a beneficiary and a subsequent purchaser is subject to revocation of a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da21923, Aug. 30, 2004). Of the instant lawsuit, the part seeking revocation of the pre-sale agreement between the beneficiary and the subsequent purchaser does not have the benefit of lawsuit.

2. A cited part;

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

Cheongwon of the Gu

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s imposition of global income tax on Nonparty KimCC

On December 27, 2011, the director of the tax office affiliated with the plaintiff notified non-party DDD Co., Ltd. (OO-OO-OO-OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-3 of O-O-O-O-O-O-O2) to file a tax return on the omission of the tax return even after the OO also transferred OO-O-O-O-O-156-3 of O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-type 15 of the above corporation's representative, the non-party KimCC (O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-type O-O-type 15 of the following year. However, on June 1, 2012, the director of the tax office notified the non-party 1's global income tax notice that the tax return should be paid up to the next date.

Table 1: The delinquent tax amount of Nonparty KimCC

(unit: Won)

Items of Taxation

Reversion

Liability for Tax Payment

Date of establishment

Deadline for payment

Amount of delinquent tax

Jinay

Global Income Tax

206

December 27, 2011

June 30, 2012

OOO

Gap evidence 1-2

Consolidateds

OOO

B. The relationship between Nonparty KimCC and the Defendants

Defendant AA is the spouse of Nonparty A KimCC, and Defendant BB Development Co., Ltd. owns 100% of the shares of Defendant A and Nonparty A KimCC, and Defendant A is located in the domicile of Defendant AA as a construction company whose representative director is the Defendant A. (No. 2-1 of the evidence A 2- resident registration, etc., abstract, and certified copy of the corporate register)

2. Fraudulent act;

On February 16, 2012, 2012, Non-Party KimCC (attached Form) made a registration of transfer of ownership with the original support of the Chuncheon District Court on February 16, 2012 and with No. 7893 on the ground that the real estate listed in the list (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”). In addition, on February 14, 2012, Defendant Jungcheon District Court on February 16, 2012, issued the registration of transfer of ownership with the original support of the Chuncheon District Court on February 16, 2012 and the provisional registration of transfer of ownership claim under No. 7894 on the ground that the instant real estate received a receipt was sold. (No. 3-1 to 3-1 copy of the real estate register)

3. The intention of Nonparty KimCC to kill

On December 27, 2011, Nonparty KimCC received a notice of change in the amount of income stated that the omission in the return of corporate tax of Nonparty DDD corporation, which he/she was the representative, is a bonus to himself/herself and that the return of global income tax should be filed by the 10th of the following month. In addition, Nonparty KimCC, based on the above notice of change in the amount of income, issued a notice of decision on the comprehensive income tax, which is the preserved bond in this case. Accordingly, Nonparty KimCC, as a matter of course, was able to know that the global income tax (the preserved bond in this case) will be levied later at the time of receipt of the above notice of change in the amount of income, and under this condition, intended to evade the taxation claim by donating the real estate in this case to his/her spouse. Accordingly, this act is a fraudulent act and it should be deemed that the Plaintiff was aware that

4. Bad faith of the defendants

The defendant Jeong-A is the spouse of the non-party KimCC, and the defendant Jung-A and the non-party KimCC own 100% of shares, and the defendant Jeong-A is located in the domicile of the defendant Jung-A as a construction corporation whose representative director is the defendant Jeong-A. This fact is expected to impose a high global income tax on the non-party KimCC, and the non-party KimCC will be in excess of his obligation at the time of donation of the real estate in this case, and the intention of the non-party KimCC's will to understand the fact that this act constitutes a fraudulent act, and that the non-party KimCC

5. Excess of debts.

As of the date of fraudulent act ( February 14, 2012), the non-party KimCC donated the real estate in this case to the defendant Jeong-A while there is no other active property other than the vice versa in this case, and the active property remaining after the donation to the defendant Jeong-A shall be deemed as the "OO" won, and the property was a small property as a part of the OO of the national tax preservation claim.

Therefore, Nonparty KimCC caused debt excess status (OO = 0 - OOO) by donation of the instant real estate, and reduced the ability of Nonparty KimCC to repay the Plaintiff’s self-reliance. (Evidence A 4 - Data on Property of Default and Data on Property of Default)

6. The date on which he has become aware of a fraudulent act;

The Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the transfer of ownership has been registered under the name of Defendant JeongA, and that the provisional registration for the transfer of ownership was established under the name of Defendant BB Development Company, after being issued a copy of the register of the real estate in this case on October 25, 2012 in order to adjust the arrears of the national tax of Nonparty KimCC.

7. Conclusion

In the above facts, the non-party KimCC donated the real estate in this case to the defendant Jeong-A, and the establishment of the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on the basis of the promise to sell and purchase the real estate in this case to the defendant Eul-B Development Co., Ltd. was known to the effect that the defendants knew the tax payer in order to be exempted from the disposition on default of national taxes such as seizure in arrears. As such, the defendants also knew the factual relations. Accordingly, the defendant sought the revocation of objection pursuant to Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 406 of the Civil Act and the respondent is obliged to perform the registration of cancellation of the ownership transfer registration made with respect to the real estate in this case to the non-party KimCC, and the defendant Eul-B Development Co., Ltd. is obligated to cancel the registration

Accordingly, the plaintiff would recover ownership of the real estate of this case in the name of Nonparty KimCC and claim that BB development corporation's right to claim ownership transfer registration should be cancelled.