The title trust agreement between the spouse is terminated and the defendant cannot be deemed to have received a return of the registration of ownership transfer in the future, and the donation in this case constitutes fraudulent act.

Since there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant paid the above purchase price with its own funds, it cannot be viewed as termination of title trust.

2013 Ghana 115647 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

The AA

May 23, 2014

June 20, 2014

1. With respect to the OO-type O-type O-type O-type 764 square meters:

A. On May 16, 2012, the Defendant and NewB cancel the gift agreement concluded on May 16, 2012, and B. The Defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on May 17, 2012 with the OO registry office of the District Court (OB).

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

In full view of the respective entries and arguments in Gap 1-7, the director of the tax office under his/her control notified the defendant of the omission of income declarations in NewB (mutual name): on July 11, 2012, with global income tax, etc.; on July 2, 2012, the director of the regional tax office notified the new B of the payment of OB for the omission of value-added tax in the year 2007-2010 (each of the particulars is as shown in the separate sheet); on May 16, 2012, the newB notified the defendant of the exemption of value-added tax for the year 2007-2010 (each of the particulars is as shown in the separate sheet); on the following grounds, the defendant, the husband, donated OOOOB large 764 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "OB") to the defendant, who is the only property of the defendant, and the defendant, under his/her responsibility to recover the ownership transfer registration of the land in this case, should be revoked.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. On May 10, 2005, the Defendant purchased the instant land by himself, but was trusted to the new BB, only under the name of his father, and merely received the cancellation of the above title trust agreement and returned the registration of ownership transfer in the future, and thus, does not constitute fraudulent act. The title trustee’s act of completing the registration of ownership transfer of the trusted real estate upon the performance of a duty to return the real estate under the trust agreement does not constitute fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da79704, Apr. 26, 2007). Accordingly, the Defendant’s act of purchasing the instant land under the name of the Plaintiff 5, B, 1, 2, and 3 as the Defendant’s new title trust. In full view of the following facts, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant land was purchased under the name of the Plaintiff 70,000,000,0000 won under the name of the Plaintiff 1,705,000,000.

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.