It constitutes a fraudulent act by transferring claims to a person with a special relationship who intends to be exempted from disposition on default.

The transfer of dividend claim to a person with a special relationship with the knowledge that the transfer income tax in arrears would hinder the disposition on default, such as seizure, etc., due to the transfer of the claim, constitutes a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Ghana 103903 Revocation of fraudulent act

Korea

XX

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

October 16, 2012

1. The agreement between the defendant and KimA on the transfer and takeover of dividends entered into on April 4, 2012 shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claim;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

2. Applicable provisions;

Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Grounds of Claim

1. Relationship between the parties;

ThisB is a false misunderstanding of Non-Party KimA-do, Kim Dong-dong 000-201 (Evidence A 1 - Family Relationship Certificate)

2. Formation of preserved claims;

Details of taxation

On January 25, 2011, the head of the Ansan-gu Tax Office under the Plaintiff notified Non-Party KimA of KRW 000 of the transfer tax for the year of 201 on March 13, 2012 after transferring the third parcel of land in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do, the head of the tax office without reporting.

However, the non-party KimA did not pay by the date of the filing of the suit, and thus, the tax amount in arrears including additional dues was 000 won. (The specific contents are as follows.)

(The following table omitted):

3. Fraudulent act;

The non-party KimA, a delinquent taxpayer, transferred KRW 000 to this BB, which is a fraud, the bonds listed in the list (attached Form) (hereinafter referred to as “instant bonds”).

The date of transfer of dividends between the non-party KimA and the defendant Lee B is indicated on March 26, 2010.

However, on March 26, 2010, the date of the transfer of the contract, which was the first day on March 26, 2010, did not exist at the time of the transfer on May 12, 2010, when KimA initially created a collateral security on the real estate, and the title of the contract was indicated as the "contract for the transfer and takeover of dividends" which is not the "contract for the transfer and takeover of collateral security", and the transfer date was indicated as the "contract for the transfer and takeover of dividends" which is the number of real estate auction (Seoul Central District Court No. 201tata, No. 29704, Oct. 13, 201), which is the cause of registration (Seoul Central District Court No. 201, No. 3-1 of the certificate of transfer and takeover of dividends, and the copy of the register No. 3-2 of the real estate register).

In fact, the dividend accrued after the commencement of voluntary auction, and the transfer of the claim of this case was done after October 13, 201.

Therefore, the fraudulent act occurred after January 31, 201, 201, which is the date of the establishment of the preserved claim, and the confirmed date of the fraudulent act should be considered to be April 4, 2012 as the date of receipt of the "Notice of Transfer of Rights" to the Seoul Central District Court. (A evidence 3-3 Notice of Transfer of Rights)

4. Excess of debts;

On the date of the fraudulent act in this case, Nonparty KimA’s active property is the maximum debt amount of KRW 000 and maximum debt amount of KRW 000,000 on the land of Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do. Such property is the maximum debt amount of KRW 000,000 on the national tax preserved claim. The property is the debt amount of KRW 00 (△△00 =00 +000 +000) - 00). (A evidence 4 - the data on the status of property of the delinquent taxpayer, etc. (A)

5. The intention of an injury.

The director of the Ansan Tax Office under the Plaintiff notified the transfer tax for the year 201 to the KimA on March 13, 2012 and the total amount of 000 won was incurred.

After all, the non-party KimA has transferred the claim of this case to the defendant, who is a person with a special relationship, in default.

This act is intended to avoid the disposition on default by the plaintiff and constitutes an intention to harm the plaintiff who is a taxation right holder.

6. Bad faith of the defendant

The defendant was in excess of his obligation at the time of the transfer of the claim of this case by the non-party KimA due to the fraud of the non-party KimA, and the defendant was aware of the fact that the sale of this case constitutes a fraudulent act and the intention of the non-party KimA's apology.

7. Acknowledgement of a fraudulent act;

As such, the fact that the instant claim was transferred in the name of the Defendant was known to the Plaintiff on May 17, 2012 when the Plaintiff was notified that the rights of KimA were transferred to the pertinent court for the adjustment of national taxes in arrears.

8. Value compensation.

Non-party KimA transferred KRW 000 to Defendant BB the bonds listed in the list (attached Form).

Since the real estate in question is sold through a voluntary auction after the transfer of the claim and the amount of KRW 000 is distributed to Defendant B, it is prepared to seek compensation for the amount of dividend in the name of this B.

9. Absence;

In light of the above facts, the transfer of claims between the delinquent taxpayer KimA and the defendant LeeB was concluded with the knowledge that the transfer of claims between the delinquent taxpayer KimA and the defendant LeeB would be exempted from the disposition on default of national taxes imposed by the head of Ansan Tax Office, and the defendant also knew the facts. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for compensation in accordance with Article 30 (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act) of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 406 (Revocation of Right of Revocation) of the Civil Act was brought about.