It is difficult to view that the act of paying the instant gold constitutes a gift or does not constitute a gift, as alleged by the Plaintiff, at the time of payment, the said originalB had an intent to harm the Plaintiff.

In a case where a debtor performs his/her obligation according to the principal place of the obligation to a specific creditor in excess of his/her obligation, thereby reducing the joint security of other creditors, such performance does not constitute a fraudulent act, in principle, unless the debtor performs his/her obligation in collusion with some of his/her creditors, with the intent to prejudice other creditors.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2013 Ghana 5042741 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

LAA

September 26, 2013

October 24, 2013

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The contract of donation concluded on July 25, 201 between the originalB and the Defendant is revoked. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 24, 2011, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation accepted OB from OB, the father of the defendant, OB, OB, OB, 374-1 land of the above Ri 374-3 land of the above Ri 66 land (hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case"). The Korea Land and Housing Corporation paid OB of the expropriation price on June 24, 201, and the above original B was transferred the remainder of OB as a bank account of its own bank, excluding OOB used to repay the secured debt of mortgage set forth on each land of this case.

B. On July 25, 2011, the originalB withdrawn the OOB (hereinafter “the instant money”) from the deposit account of the said corporate bank and remitted the money to the Defendant’s national bank account.

C. On November 10, 201, the head of the original tax office under the Plaintiff’s control determined the capital gains tax to be borne by the said original B as of November 30, 201 with respect to the expropriation of each of the instant land, as the OOO, payment deadline, and notified the said original B of the determination (hereinafter “instant taxation claim”).

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, and 8 (including a branch number for those with a serial number)

The purpose of the whole theory

2. Determination

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the above originalB remitted the money of this case to the defendant, and that since it constitutes a fraudulent act that harms the plaintiff, who is the tax claim of this case against the above originalB, the above originalB and the defendant should be revoked, and that the amount equivalent to the above amount should be returned as restitution.

In regard to this, the defendant, the above original owner, lent the OOB to the above original owner, and the defendant asserted that the above loan was transferred only to the above original owner.

B. Determination

(1) The existence of preserved claims

The instant taxation claim occurred on November 10, 201, which was later than July 25, 201, the date of remittance of the instant money. However, on June 24, 2011, it is reasonable to deem that there was a high probability of not only the establishment of legal relations which form the basis of establishing each of the instant taxation claims, such as the payment of the expropriation price for each of the instant lands, but also the actual occurrence of the near future taxation claims. Accordingly, the instant taxation claim becomes the preserved claim in the claim for revocation of fraudulent act against the Defendant.

(2) Determination as to whether the act of paying the instant money constitutes a gift

(A) A creditor who claims a legal act, etc. of a debtor and seeks the revocation thereof is a fraudulent act, as well as the existence of the preserved claim and the debtor's legal act, and the debtor's insolvency occurred due to a legal act, and the debtor's intent to understand it, and in the meantime, if the debtor donated his/her own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, such act constitutes a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances. However, in cases where the debtor's joint security of other creditors is reduced due to the debtor's repayment according to the specific creditor's principal obligation in excess of obligation, such repayment does not constitute a fraudulent act in principle unless the debtor, in collusion with some creditors and with some creditors, made a repayment with the intent to prejudice other creditors, and thus, it does not constitute a fraudulent act. However, the creditor's assertion that a creditor seeking the revocation of a fraudulent act is a donation to the debtor's beneficiary, which constitutes a fraudulent act with the debtor's intent to pay for the existing obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act of 200 (see Supreme Court Decision 8060Da2060, supra.).

(B) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant transferred the instant money to the originalB as a total of all the arguments in the statement Nos. 1 and 2, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the Defendant, namely, the Defendant: (a) on Jan. 29, 2010, prior to the payment date of the instant money; (b) on May 11, 2010, OOOO; and (c) on April 27, 201, OOOOOOO; and (d) on the basis of the amount of the instant money paid, the Defendant’s assertion that the said money was paid as a donation, and it is difficult to conclude that the instant money was paid as a donation; (b) the said money was merely ten percent of the amount received as land expropriation; and (c) it is difficult to deem that the said originalB did not harm the Plaintiff’s intent to do so by in collusion with the Defendant and thus did not constitute the Plaintiff’s assertion that it did not constitute grounds to deem that it did not constitute the Plaintiff’s act of payment of donation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the claims of the plaintiff in this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.