The transfer of real estate in this case constitutes a fraudulent act.

The transfer of real estate in this case constitutes a fraudulent act.

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

2013 Gohap72142 Revocation of fraudulent act

Korea

○○

July 17, 2014

September 4, 2014

1. The sales contract concluded on February 0, 2013 between the defendant and the non-party A with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the non-party A for the restoration of the true name.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s taxation claims against OA around the filing date of the instant lawsuit is KRW 0 as follows.

B. On February 0, 2013, OraA entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendant to sell each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in price of KRW 00 million, and completed each registration of ownership transfer on March 0, 2013 with the grounds for registration.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 6, Gap evidence 4-1, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

The amount of the obligee’s right of revocation includes the interest or delay damages incurred from the date of the conclusion of the trial proceedings after the fraudulent act, and the additional dues under Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act are the kind of incidental dues imposed in the meaning of the interest on the unpaid portion in the event national taxes have not been paid by the due date. If a tax claim is recognized as the obligee’s right of revocation, the amount of such tax claim shall include the additional dues incurred from the time of the conclusion of the trial proceedings after the fraudulent act to the time of the conclusion of arguments (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007). In addition, in light of the fact that the legal relationship, which serves as the basis for the occurrence of additional tax claims, has already been established. After the conclusion of the sales contract in this case, it is highly probable that the additional tax claim was established in the near future, as well as the possibility thereof has been realized in the near future. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s right of revocation can also be seen as the obligee’s right of revocation.

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

1) In determining whether an obligor’s insolvency, which is the requirement to exercise the obligee’s right of revocation, requires that in principle, the small property subject to it was generated prior to the occurrence of an act that can be deemed a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that the legal relationship, which is the basis of the establishment of an obligation, has already been established at the time of such fraudulent act, and that the obligation is established in the near future, based on such legal relationship. In fact, in the near future, the possibility of realizing the obligation in the near future, the obligation should also be included in the obligor’s small property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da68084, Jan. 13, 201). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the above evidence as mentioned above, and evidence evidence as well as evidence Nos. 5 and evidence Nos. 4-3, 4, 5, 8, and 6-1 of evidence No. 6, which can be seen as having been active in the sales contract with the Plaintiff at the time of the above general obligee.

(A) According to the evidence Nos. 9, 10, and 11 of A, each collateral security obligation of 00 Es. S., ○○○○ Cooperative, and 00 ○○ Receiving Agreement, shall not be included in a small property, unless it appears that the obligation was assumed or actually discharged by deducting the amount of the debt from the purchase price at the time when the relevant secured real estate was sold to another person before the establishment of a fraudulent act, etc., or unless there are special circumstances, such as where the obligation was actually established due to the termination of the lease relationship, etc., the obligation to return the lease deposit of OA shall be included in a small property equivalent to the initial deposit, as it is, unless there is any special circumstance, such

2) Therefore, the instant sales contract is a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, a general creditor, barring any special circumstances, that caused the shortage of common creditors’ joint collateral and eventually causes the shortage of debt. In addition, in light of the status of debt and asset at the time of OA, the progress of the construction-sale business, and the relationship with the Defendant, etc., it is reasonable to deem that OA, at that time, knew that the sales contract in this case was likely to cause the shortage of assets in securing the Plaintiff’s obligation to the general creditor as well as the tax delinquent obligation to the Plaintiff at the time, and that the sales contract in this case would cause the shortage of securing the Plaintiff’s obligation to the general creditor. Furthermore, it is insufficient to reverse the recognition solely on the ground that there was a lack of tax consultation with the competent tax office to adjust the amount in arrears, and further, the Defendant

[1] The so-called obligor’s bad faith, i.e., the obligor’s awareness that the obligor, as a subjective element of the obligee’s right of revocation, should not prejudice the obligee, that the obligor would not be able to fully satisfy the obligee’s claims because the obligor’s assets are reduced by the obligor’s act of disposal of the obligor’s property, making it difficult for the obligor to fully satisfy the obligee’s claims due to the obligor’s shortage of joint security or lack of existing joint security. Such recognition does not require an awareness that the obligor would be sufficient and specific in the relationship with the general obligee. Moreover, there is sufficient passive perception that the obligor would not be harming or willing to harm the obligee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da57320, May 12, 1998; 2003Da40286, Dec. 12, 2003))

3) On this issue, the Defendant asserted to the effect that, upon the OA’s request, the Defendant: (a) purchased a claim for remuneration of KRW 00,000 and KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

If a debtor's act of disposal of property against a third party constitutes a fraudulent act subject to an obligee's right of revocation, the beneficiary is presumed to have acted in bad faith, so unless the beneficiary fails to prove that it was in good faith at the time of the juristic act, the obligee can claim restitution. In such a case, in recognizing that the beneficiary was in good faith at the time of the fraudulent act, evidence that can be objectively and objectively obtained should be supported, and it should not be readily concluded that the beneficiary was in good faith at the time of the fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Da1380, Apr. 25, 198; 90Da16276, Feb. 12, 191; 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 12 of the above 0A, Eul evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, and 8-1 of the evidence No. 8, and the following circumstances, which were known to the defendant's 00 billion won of the testimony of the witness Eul, can be seen as having entered into a special agreement to offset construction price by the defendant's 00 billion won. Thus, the defendant's claim for construction price is merely a claim belonging to ○○ Construction Design, and it cannot be viewed as a claim of the defendant's individual, even if the defendant's actual management share was less than 0 billion won, and the defendant's transfer registration of ownership was made in the name of the defendant with respect to the above 00 billion won of the real estate in consideration of the fact that the above 00 billion won of the above 0-year interest rate was less than that of the defendant's 1's residential property, and the defendant's assertion that the above 2-year interest rate was less than that of the defendant's claim.

(c) Cancellation and reinstatement;

1) If a registration indicating ownership was made in his/her future, or if a person who acquired ownership pursuant to a law seeks to cancel the registration by means of restoring the real name of the registration, it is also necessary to seek the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer against the present registered titleholder in addition to seeking the cancellation of the registration. This legal doctrine applies to cases where a beneficiary seeks to return the name of the real estate for the purpose of cancellation from the beneficiary to the debtor in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act. Therefore, the creditor is entitled to seek the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer against the defendant, instead of seeking the cancellation of the registration in the name of the defendant, who is the beneficiary, by means of restitution (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da53704, Feb.

2) As seen earlier, the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of OrA with respect to the instant real estate is identical to that of the Defendant. As such, the instant sales contract concluded between the Defendant and OrA with respect to the instant real estate is revoked, and the Defendant, the beneficiary, is obliged to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the instant real estate due to the restoration of the real name due to the revocation of fraudulent act, by the debtor, to restore the original state to

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons of the judgment as per Disposition.