The gift contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act

The gift contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act and thus the gift contract of this case must be revoked.

2016 Ghana 229613 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

OO

2017.05.24

2017.06.28

1. The contract of donation between the defendant and AA shall be revoked.O.O.O.O. concluded between the defendant and AA.O.O.

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

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. While AA has operated 'BBB' on each land and each building on OO-O-O and two parcels of land and each building on each of these lots of land, AAA filed a value-added tax return on the sales of each of the above land and buildings to OO.O.O.O. CCC (hereinafter referred to as 'non-O.' of this case) and OO.O.O.O.O. D. D. D. D office, which is the final payment deadline, but did not pay the value-added tax until now.

B. The value-added tax in arrears by OOO.O.O.O. reference AA. reaches OO(value-added tax + additional OOO + additional OO(hereinafter “instant tax”).

C. Meanwhile, from OO.O.O.O. to O.O.O.O., a total amount of nine times from the non-party company transferred O.O.O.O.O.O. to its account of an O bank (Account Number: O-O-O-O-O), A.O.O. withdrawal from the above O-O.O. A. A. A. A. A, the Defendant, who is its wife, donated O-O's wife to the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the donation in this case"); the Defendant deposited O-O.O.O. bank account (Account Number: O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O) and deposited O-O-O's account (hereinafter referred to as "O-O-O-O-).

D. At the time of the donation of this case, AA’s active property was comprised of (1) OO2, O2, O2, O2, O2, O2, O200, and O20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

1) In principle, it is required that a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis for the establishment of a claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future in the near future. In the near future, where a claim has been created by realizing such probability in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da53173, Aug. 19, 2005; 2007Da21245, Jul. 15, 2010).

2) According to the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s instant tax claim against AA had not yet occurred at the time of the instant donation, but in light of the requirements for establishing the tax liability and the timing of establishment, etc., the legal relationship, which was the basis of the instant tax claim, had already occurred prior to the instant donation, and it was highly probable that the instant tax claim would have been established in the near future as the instant sales contract was implemented. In fact, the implementation of the instant sales contract was completed, and the value-added tax was reported to the OO tax office, and its probability was realized, and the instant tax claim was established, so long as the instant tax claim was established by AAA’s reporting the value-added tax to the OO tax office, the instant tax claim may be the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation.

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

1) According to the above facts of recognition, AAA, which was delayed in the payment of the instant tax against the Plaintiff, shall be deemed to constitute a fraudulent act detrimental to ordinary creditors including the Plaintiff, and it shall be presumed that AA knew that such act was committed as above, i.e., the Plaintiff’s damage to ordinary creditors including the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed.

2) As to the above, the defendant alleged that the OO members received from AA were not donated to the O members, but was paid late due to the debt owed to AA. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(c) Scope of revocation of fraudulent act and methods of reinstatement;

1) If a creditor’s revocation of fraudulent act and a claim for restitution are acknowledged, the beneficiary is obligated to return the subject matter of the fraudulent act to the debtor as restitution, and if it is impossible or considerably difficult to return originals, the beneficiary must compensate for the equivalent amount of the value of the subject matter of the fraudulent act as performance of duty to restore. In addition, in cases of seeking compensation for value revocation and revocation of fraudulent act, the scope of restitution is the smaller amount between the scope of profit acquired by the beneficiary at the time of the conclusion

2) Pursuant to the above legal principles, the amount of the instant tax obligation based on OO.O.O.O.O. as seen earlier exceeds the amount of the instant gift amount by OO.O.O., so the instant contract between the Defendant and AA should be entirely revoked. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at a rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.