It is difficult to recognize that the Defendant was bona fide at the time of the instant sales contract.

The non-party company was in insolvent at the time when the defendant, the designated person and the subsequent purchaser conduct a legal act in excess of active property. If the debtor gratuitously transfers real estate, which is the only property, or provided it to some creditors in accord, such act constitutes a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances. The defendant's bad faith, which is the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser, is presumed.

Article 30 of the National Disciplinary Act

2013 Ghana 503156 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

IsaA

October 22, 2013

November 19, 2013

1. The sales contract concluded on June 21, 2012 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (1), between Defendant (Appointed Party) and Nonparty BB, and the sales contract concluded on June 15, 2012 for the real estate listed in the separate sheet (2), and the sales contract concluded on June 22, 2012 for the real estate listed in the separate sheet (3) is revoked.

2. The Defendant (Appointed) will implement the procedure for each registration of cancellation of ownership transfer as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (1) with the Cheongju District Court, Cheongju District Court, Cheongju District Court, 2914, which was completed on June 21, 2012 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (2), the registration of transfer of ownership completed on June 20, 2012 with the receipt of No. 28743, such as Cheongju District Court, Cheongju District Court, Cheongju District Court, Cheongju District Court, and (3) the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer, which was completed on June 222, 2012 as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (3).

3. To revoke each sales contract concluded on June 12, 2012 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate list Nos. 4 and (5) between ECC and BBV Co., Ltd.

4. The SelectionCC shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on June 14, 2012 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2052, which was completed on June 14, 2012, including the Suwon District Court’s branch branch branch, and the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on June 14, 2012 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 20523, Jun. 14, 2012.

5. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s establishment of claims against BB-B-B-B-B

BBV Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") is a corporation operating real estate sales business under 23-2 Dtel 2003 from October 24, 2008 to OOO-dong 23-2 Dtel 2003, and the Plaintiff (competent regional tax office: OO-si regional tax office) confirmed that the details of the return of the value-added tax and the income tax were incorrect and omitted in accordance with the results of the general integrated investigation conducted between May 29, 2012 and June 28, 2012, and made a decision on August 9, 2012 on the imposition of value-added tax and the income tax on the non-party company as follows (hereinafter referred to as "the tax claim of this case"):

Items of Taxation

The payment shall be made in writing.

Amount of tax paid in arrears (cost)

(Reverted Months)

Value-added Tax

August 24, 2012

OOO

1, 2009

Earned income tax

August 24, 2012

OOO

209

Earned income tax

August 24, 2012

OOO

2010

Earned income tax

August 24, 2012

OOO

2011

Total

OOO

B. Property legal act between the non-party company and the defendant (appointed party) and the AppointrCC

The non-party company entered into a sales contract on June 21, 2012 with regard to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (1); on June 21, 2012 with regard to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (2); on June 15, 2012 with regard to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (3); and on June 22, 2012 with regard to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (1), entered into a sales contract on June 21, 2012 with Chungcheong District Court No. 29114, Jun. 21, 2012; on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (2); on June 20, 2012, No. 28743, Jun. 20, 2012; on June 20, 2015, the title transfer registration on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (3); and on each of the real estate (2.15) No. 214, Jun. 2, 2012012, 206).

C. Details of the property of the non-party company at the time of the above property legal act

At the time of the non-party company doing the above property legal act with the defendant, the designated party, and the non-party company's active property, each real estate was indicated in the separate sheet equivalent to the OOO won, and the non-party company was liable for the loan to the defendant and the designated party as stated below, with the small property as the tax liability of the plaintiff 226,710,250 won and the following.

D. Relationship between the non-party company and the defendant and the selector

The defendant and the designated parties are children of YE, the representative director of the non-party company.

Facts that there is no dispute for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (if there is a number, each number number;

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading;

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The time when the Plaintiff’s taxation claim establishment against the non-party company is established is between the non-party company, the defendant, and the designated

The plaintiff's taxation claim against the non-party company is a preserved claim in the cancellation of the plaintiff's fraudulent act in this case, as it is recognized that there is a property juristic act.

As seen earlier, the non-party company was in insolvent at the time when it performs a legal act with respect to the Defendant, a designated person, and a subsequent purchaser. If the debtor’s property is insufficient to fully repay his/her obligation, if the debtor gratuitously transfers real estate, which is his/her sole property, or provided it in accord with payment to some creditors, such act constitutes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstances. The Defendants’ bad faith, which is the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser, is presumed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 200

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

The Defendant, from around 2010 to around 2010, had a claim of the OOO members from around 2009 to around 200, but did not receive it from the non-party company, and concluded each sales contract with the non-party as a substitute for the real estate stated in the separate sheet, and thus the Defendant bona fide and bona fide.

Since the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit, the beneficiary is responsible for proving his/her good faith in order to be exempted from his/her responsibility. In this case, whether the beneficiary is bona fide or not shall be determined reasonably in light of logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary, the details of and the background or motive for the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary, the circumstances leading to the act of disposal, whether there are no special circumstances to suspect the act of disposal, and whether there are objective materials supporting the act of disposal

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 6, it is recognized that the defendant remitted to the non-party company on Feb. 10, 201, and the non-party company on Aug. 8, 2011, the non-party company and the defendant entered into a payment contract in lieu of the repayment of the loan claims held by the non-party company on Dec. 10, 2010 between the non-party company and the defendant on Dec. 10, 201, the payment contract in lieu of the repayment of the loan claims held by the non-party company on the real estate indicated in the attached list Nos. 1 through 3 was entered into, the selected's account was transferred to the FF On Jul. 20, 2009, the non-party company agreed to pay the loan claims to the designated person on Oct. 20, 209.

However, from May 29, 2012, the non-party company was investigated by the plaintiff (competent regional tax office): the facts that the representative director of the non-party company and the appointed person are children of Yellow E, the representative director of the non-party company; the following circumstances acknowledged by the entire purport of oral argument, namely, the defendant and the appointed person did not receive money before the transfer of each real estate listed in the separate sheet from the non-party company; the defendant and the appointed person did not receive due tax liability from the non-party company according to the tax investigation; the real estate mentioned in the separate sheet, which is only the only real estate of the non-party company, was concluded on June 2012; the defendant concluded a sales contract with the non-party company on behalf of the non-party company and the non-party company on December 10, 2010; the defendant did not have any objective evidence to acknowledge that the non-party company and the designated person did not transfer part of the purchase price of the real estate to the non-party company under the separate sheet, but it is difficult to recognize the amount of the non-party company and the non-party company.

Therefore, each sales contract on real estate stated in the attached list 1 through 5 shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant and the appointed party have the obligation to cancel each registration of transfer of ownership as stated in the order due to restitution.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant and the designated person is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.