to the extent that it constitutes a fraudulent act with knowledge that it would prejudice the creditor.

After being notified of corporate tax in relation to the tax investigation, preparing a sales contract and transferring a real estate which is a primary property constitutes a fraudulent act done with the knowledge that it harms creditors, and thus, the sales contract should be cancelled and the registration of ownership transfer should be cancelled for reinstatement

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Revocation of Fraudulent Act No. 9114

Korea

XX

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

August 22, 2012

1. The sales contract concluded on April 27, 201 with respect to the 000-00 square meters between the Defendant and the limited liability company in Gunsan-si and the limited liability company with respect to the 217-8 square meters wide.

2. The Defendant will implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer, which was completed on April 29, 201 by the Jeonju District Court of Jeonju with respect to the real estate mentioned in the aforesaid paragraph 1-2 to the limited liability company.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claim;

Attached Form 3 is as shown in the "Cause of Claim".

2. Applicable provisions;

Article 208(3)1 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment without Holding Any Pleadings)

Grounds of Claim

1. A preserved tax claim;

The plaintiff's taxation claims are as follows:

Local Tax Offices

Items of Taxation

Date of Notice

Deadline for payment

The current amount of delinquent local taxes;

Liability for Tax Payment

Date of establishment

Military Accounting

Value-added Tax

December 06, 2010

2011.015

00

December 31, 2010

Corporate Tax

2011.04.01

2011.04.30

00

December 31, 2009

Corporate Tax

2011.04.01

2011.04.30

00

December 31, 2008

Corporate Tax

December 05, 201

December 31, 201

00

December 31, 2010

Total delinquent amount

00

원고 산하 군산세무서장은 소외 (유)XX에 대하여 2010.11.11˜11.30 기간동안 법인사업자 통합조사를 실시하였고 그 결과 소외 (유)XX의 건축용역 매출 신고 누락분에 대하여 2011. 4. 1. 법인세 금 000원을 2011. 4. 30. 납부기한으로 고지하였으며, 2010년 사업연도 법인세 신고시 이월결손금 부당공제에 대하여 2011. 12. 5. 법인세 금 000원을 고지하였고, 2010년 2기 부가가치세 예정신고 후 무납부한 건에 대하여 2010. 12. 6. 부가가치세 금 000원을 2011. 1. 15. 납부기한으로 고지하였으나 이를 납부하지 아니하였습니다. 소외 (유)XX은 현재 가산금 포함 금 000원을 체납하고 있습니다.

(see, e.g., Inquiry into Default)

2. Fraudulent act;

The representative KimA of XX was notified of a high amount of tax, the non-party 2, who knew from 98 years to 217.8mm2 (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") of the Jeonju District Court, Jeonju District Court, Jeonju District Court on April 29, 201, and received the registration of transfer of ownership as of 22841 on April 29, 201, to the defendant who had known from 200-00m217m2 (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case").

The Supreme Court ruled 94Da14582 ruled that a debtor in collusion with one of the creditors and sells important property to him/her without paying the purchase price at the rate in reality, in the event that the debtor has been in excess of his/her obligation, the fraudulent act is recognized.

Upon examining the instant transaction, the head of the Gunsan Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control asked Defendant BB about the details of the payment of the instant real estate purchase price on August 18, 201, based on the right to ask questions and inspection under Article 27 of the National Tax Collection Act, and Defendant BB sent two copies of the reply to the questionnaire, the real estate sales contract, and the loan certificate (see evidence 4 through 7).

According to the defendant's answer, the defendant stated that he was aware of the representative KimA from 1998, and that he lent 000 won as of September 3, 2008 at the request of KimA, and that he lent 000 won as of February 15, 2009.

In addition, the defendant requested the non-party KimA to repay the loan, but on the ground that the corporate situation is difficult, it was proposed that the non-party KimA purchase the real estate of this case on the condition that the non-party Kim Jong will take over the collateral collateral obligation (the Gunsan Branch of the North Korean Bank) established on the real estate of this case. Accordingly, the defendant concluded a real estate sale contract with 000 won on April 27, 201, and stated that 00 won of the collateral collateral obligation (the Gunsan Branch of the former North Korean Bank) out of the purchase price was taken over by the defendant and offset the remaining purchase price against the defendant's monetary claim, but the defendant failed to present any transaction data, such as the withdrawal account, in addition to the loan certificate under XX.

As above, the real estate transaction of this case between the defendant and the non-party (ownership) XX constitutes a fraudulent act with the intent to prejudice other creditors.

4. The intention of an injury.

Defendant AB may be deemed to have known on April 30, 201, immediately after being notified of KRW 000 of the due date for payment on April 27, 2011, that the sales contract of this case was made and transferred to the creditors by preparing and transferring a sales contract on April 27, 2011 with respect to the corporate business integration investigation of Non-Party AB’s real estate in the attached list as the pro rata property from '98 to her knowledge of the representative KimA,’ and in such a case, the debtor’s bad faith is presumed to be presumed.

A. Non-party (oil) XX Insolvent: 000 won (in excess of the debt)

(a) Active property: 0 won (excess of debts); and

2) Small property: 000 won

(1) Tax claims: 000 won.

5. Bad faith of the defendant

Defendant AB may be deemed to have known that the instant real estate was a pro rata property of Nonparty A, and in such a case, the Defendant’s bad faith, the beneficiary, is presumed to have been presumed to have been presumed to have been aware of the fact that the instant sales contract would prejudice the creditors, as a result of Nonparty B’s personal property from the year of 98 to the KimA.

6. Return of originals;

In light of the above facts, the non-party (ownership) XX and the defendant's transaction of this case constitutes a fraudulent act committed with the knowledge that it would prejudice the creditor, and the defendant also knew such facts. Thus, the plaintiff was entitled to claim the cancellation of the transfer of ownership due to the cancellation of the sale contract as stated in the purport of the claim.