act of making a donation to his or her property, which is the only property of his or her

In the event that national taxes are in arrears, the only property of the claimant was provided as a bond security and donated to the wife. Thus, the act of reducing the general creditor's property against the delinquent taxpayer such as the plaintiff constitutes a fraudulent act. In light of the transaction circumstances and the relationship between the defendant and the delinquent taxpayer, the intention of the delinquent taxpayer and the defendant's will is presumed

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

2012 Ghana 227548 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

1. AA;

2. BB

August 27, 2013

November 29, 2013

1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. Revocation of a mortgage contract concluded on June 7, 201 between Defendant AA and Nonparty CCC; and

B. Defendant AA performed the Plaintiff’s registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment that was completed on June 7, 201 by the OO district registry office of the O2785, which was completed on June 7, 2011;

C. Revocation of the gift agreement concluded on October 17, 201 between Defendant BB and Nonparty CCC; and

D. Defendant BB performed the Plaintiff’s procedures for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on October 17, 201 under the receipt of No. 60085 on October 17, 201;

E. Defendant AA performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed by the OO district court’s OO registry office on January 18, 2012 by the Plaintiff as the receipt of No. 3849.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Plaintiff’s taxation claim

CCC transferred to Nonparty DD on April 27, 201, the OO-Eup OO-type 177 and five parcels of land outside the O-type 6,646 square meters and 1,418.5 square meters of above ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as "transfer real estate") for KRW 1.4 billion and did not report and pay capital gains tax.

The head of the OO head of the tax office determined and notified CCC on February 29, 2012, the transfer income tax amount of KRW 000 on the transferred real estate as the due date for payment (after that, the amount of KRW 000,000, out of April 18, 2012), and CCC did not pay it. At present, the amount of delinquent transfer income tax, including additional dues and increased additional dues, is KRW 000.

(b) Disposal;

On June 7, 2011, the CCC entered into a collateral security contract (hereinafter referred to as the "instant collateral security contract") with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "real estate of this case"), which is the only property between Defendant AA, a partner of the Dong on June 7, 201, and entered into a collateral security contract with Defendant AA on this ground.

CCC entered into a donation agreement with Defendant BB on October 17, 201 with respect to the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant donation agreement”) and made the registration of transfer of ownership as stated in Section 1-D(d) of Disposition 1 on the ground of this agreement to Defendant BB.

On January 18, 2012, Defendant BB entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant AA regarding the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as “mortgage 2”) with regard to the instant real estate on the basis of the agreement, and Defendant AA entered into a mortgage agreement with Defendant A on the ground of the agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence (including each number), Eul 7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Formation of preserved claims

In principle, it is required that a claim that can be protected as a creditor's right of revocation has arisen before an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act occurred. However, at the time of the fraudulent act, there is a legal relationship that has already been based on which the claim has been established, and there is high probability that the claim should be established in the near future based on such legal relationship, and in the near future, where a claim has been created as a result of its realization in the near future, such claim may also become

According to the above facts, prior to the issuance of the first mortgage contract in this case, CCC had high probability of tax liability due to the transfer of transferred real estate, and the transfer income tax was notified in the near future. Since the possibility of realizing the transfer income tax claim in the near future, the transfer income tax claim can be the preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

According to the aforementioned evidence and the evidence evidence Nos. 11 and 12, CCC had no other assets except the instant real estate (250 million won at the market price as of June 7, 201, and 267.5 million won at the market price as of October 201, 201) as active property at the time of concluding the instant donation agreement, on June 7, 2011, and on October 17, 2011, at the time of the instant donation agreement, and on the other hand, at the same time as the instant real estate (257.5 million won at the market price as of October 201, 201), on the other hand, with a passive property exceeding the debt amounting to 83,184,152 won against OA bank, 35 million won, and 10 million won against the Plaintiff.

Unless there are special circumstances, the debtor's act of offering or donating real estate, which is the only property owned by him/her, to any one of the creditors, as collateral security, constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, barring special circumstances. According to the above recognition facts, CCC, which was not in excess of his/her obligation, established the first collateral security right in this case to Defendant AA and made the donation to Defendant BB, constitutes a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances, and it shall be presumed that CCC's intention to harm and beneficiary, and the subsequent purchaser, Defendant AAAB, and BB, a subsequent purchaser, are presumed to be a malicious act.

[Defendant asserts that the value of the instant real estate at the time of the instant contract to establish the first mortgage or the instant donation contract is KRW 22 million, and that the amount of the secured claim established on the instant real estate is KRW 29,184,512, and that the amount of the secured claim exceeds the value of the subject matter, so the first collateral mortgage contract or the instant donation contract does not constitute a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is a tax claim.

According to the evidence No. 2 of this case, the apartment house price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act as of January 1, 2012 can be acknowledged as the fact that the apartment house price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act was 22 billion won. However, at the time of fraudulent act, the value of property at the time of the fraudulent act shall be determined based on the actual market price, not the above apartment house price. As seen earlier, the market price at the time of entering into the first mortgage contract of this case is 250 million won and the market price at the time of the donation contract of this case is 267.5 million won.

Therefore, as seen earlier, at the time of entering into the first mortgage agreement, the CCC exceeded its obligation more than active property than active property. As seen earlier, if the amount of the first mortgage claim to be revoked as a fraudulent act was excluded from the amount of the claim secured by the first mortgage claim, it would have exceeded its obligation even at the time of the donation agreement, as seen earlier, so the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

C. The defendants' bona fide assertion

1) From February 5, 2005 to February 24, 2010, Defendant AA lent cCC a total of KRW 130 million to cCC several times, and the instant Articles 1 and 2-mortgage was established as a collateral for the said loan. Therefore, the Defendant asserted that the said act of establishing a collateral was a bona fide beneficiary and a subsequent purchaser, as he did not know that the act of establishing a collateral was constituted a fraudulent act. In addition, Defendant BB also asserted that the said act was a bona fide beneficiary, as the wife of CCC, because it was donated with 1/2 shares of the instant real estate, and thus, Defendant BB was deemed a bona fide beneficiary.

2) Since the beneficiary's bad faith in a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act is presumed to be the beneficiary's bad faith, the beneficiary is liable to prove his/her good faith in order to be exempted from his/her liability. In this case, the issue of whether the beneficiary is bona fide refers to the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary, the circumstances leading up to the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary, the circumstances leading up to the act of disposal, whether there are no special circumstances to suspect that the terms and conditions of the act of disposal are normal transaction, and whether there are objective data to support the act of disposal, and circumstances after the act of disposal, etc. should be reasonably determined in light of logical and empirical rules (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74621, Jul. 10, 2008). In addition, in order for the creditor to seek revocation of the fraudulent act against the beneficiary and to revoke the subsequent purchaser's act of purchase, the subsequent purchaser's bad faith means that the subsequent purchaser's act would prejudice the creditor, i.e., whether the subsequent purchaser's act constitutes a subsequent purchaser's bad faith is merely 2060.

3) Therefore, according to the health deposit and evidence evidence No. 4, CCC’s joint and several guarantee of Defendant BB, it may be acknowledged that it prepared a loan certificate stating that it borrowed KRW 30 million on December 17, 2004 under the joint and several guarantee of Defendant BB. However, in light of evidence No. 10 and evidence No. 10 as follows, i.e., (i) CCC’s punishment; (ii) Defendant BB’s husband; and (iii) Defendant AA’s establishment of financial transaction with Defendant ACC as a result of the following facts: (i) Defendant BB’s establishment of financial transaction with the following facts; and (ii) Defendant AA’s establishment of financial transaction with the subsequent purchaser was not of considerable income during the above period; (iii) Defendant AA did not submit a loan certificate regarding KRW 130 million,000,000,000,000,000 from the above loan certificate; and (iv) Defendant AA’s establishment of financial transaction with the subsequent purchaser is difficult.

D. Sub-determination

Thus, all of the first mortgage contract and donation contract of this case must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and as to the real estate of this case to the plaintiff, Defendant AA is obligated to perform each procedure of cancellation of the registration of establishment of mortgage and the registration of establishment of mortgage on the part of paragraph 1-b of this case, and Defendant BB is obligated to perform each procedure of cancellation of the transfer of ownership as stated in paragraph 1-d. of this case.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted in entirety on the grounds of the reasons.