Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Unless there are special circumstances, the conclusion of the contract for the transfer of the right of sale in this case constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, and the intention of the defendant, a beneficiary, is presumed.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation

2015 Gohap976 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

IsaA

June 22, 2016

July 6, 2016

1. The agreement between the defendant and KimA on the transfer of the right to sell real estate entered in the separate sheet concluded on March 20, 2015 shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 947,835,400.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 947,835,400 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The KimA, Sept. 28, 2012, on September 28, 2012, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

In other words, 8 lots of real estate (hereinafter referred to as '○○ Real Estate') was transferred, and as a result, ○○ Co., Ltd. was entitled to sell each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as 'the instant commercial building').

B. 1) On November 30, 2012, KimA’s ○○○ Real Estate on November 30, 2012

On February 7, 2013, the head of the ○○ Tax Office notified the KimA of KRW 674,464,030 of the transfer income tax on February 28, 2013.

2) On January 25, 2013, KimA reported the second half-year value-added tax on the ○○ hotel he/she operated, but did not pay it. On February 1, 2014, 2014, the head of the ○○ Tax Office notified the KimA of KRW 217,020 of the value-added tax on April 11, 2014.

3) The amount of delinquent capital gains tax that was not paid by KimA at the time of the instant lawsuit is KRW 947,611,870, including the additional dues, and the amount of delinquent capital tax is KRW 223,530,00, including the additional dues, plus KRW 947,835,40 (i.e., capital gains tax + KRW 947,61,870 + value-added tax + KRW 223,530) (hereinafter “instant tax claim”).

C. On March 20, 2015, KimA entered into a contract for the transfer of the right to sell the instant commercial buildings to the Defendant, who is the spouse (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract for the transfer of the right to sell”) and on April 14, 2015, he/she changed the name of the buyer to the Defendant, and the Defendant completed the transfer of ownership on April 20, 2015.

D. On March 20, 2015, the date of the contract for the transfer of the instant right to sell, the right to sell the instant real estate (valueing to KRW 2,447,303,00) is the sole active property of KimA.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

The transfer income tax claim shall be legally established on the last day of the month in which the amount forming the tax base occurs, and the claim for the value-added tax shall be legally established without any separate procedure of the tax authority or the taxpayer when the taxable period ends (Article 21(2)2 and (1)7 of the Framework Act

Among the instant tax claims, the transfer income tax (the transfer income tax on ○○○ Real Estate that was transferred by GimA on September 28, 2012) was established on September 30, 2012, and the value-added tax (the second quarter of December 2012) was established on December 31, 2012, and the instant tax claim becomes the preserved claim subject to revocation of fraudulent act.

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

In addition to the fact that KimA transfers the right to sell the real estate of this case, which is the sole active property of KimA, to the defendant who is the spouse, as seen earlier, and in addition to the fact that KimA transferred the right to sell the real estate and there is no evidence to receive the price from the defendant, the conclusion of the contract for the transfer of the right to sell the real estate of this case constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, and the defendant'

As to this, the defendant did not know that the plaintiff was harmful to the creditor at the time of the contract for the transfer of the right of sale of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

(c) Methods and scope of reinstatement;

Since the Defendant’s transfer of the sale right from KimA and the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate of this case is impossible or considerably difficult to return the original form of the food that received the return of the sale right due to the completion of the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate of this case, the restoration of

The scope of compensation should be limited to the smaller amount between the creditor’s claims to be preserved and the joint collateral value of the subject matter, and the Plaintiff’s claim amounting to KRW 947,835,400 against KimA, the preserved claim amounting to KRW 2,447,303,00, the sale price of this case exceeds KRW 2,447,303,00 as seen earlier. Therefore, the amount of compensation claim should be limited to the lower amount of the preserved claim.

Therefore, the agreement on the transfer of the right to sell the instant case concluded between KimA and the Defendant shall be revoked within the scope of KRW 947,835,40, which is the amount of preserved claim, as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant shall be obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 947,835,40 with compensation for value and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day when the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

claim shall be accepted.