Whether a fraudulent act of division of property by reason of divorce has been committed

Although property jointly formed during marriage was divided due to division of property, the property is not subject to division of property in excess of positive property, and is not subject to division of property in excess of the amount of the debtor, the entire property owned by the debtor, and it constitutes fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Ghana 201501 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

OraA

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

June 29, 2012

1. A property division contract concluded between the defendant and the lowestB on November 25, 2010 on each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and the separate sheet No. 2 on December 8, 2010 on each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall implement each procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of real estate completed as shown in the Appendix 1 and 2 with respect to the real estate listed in the Schedule 1 and 2 to the largestB.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claim;

A. Formation of preserved claims

Non-party B transferred on March 12, 2010 the real estate of "OO-dong 000" (hereinafter referred to as "real estate of this case") and did not pay capital gains tax, and the head of Echeon Tax Office under the Plaintiff notified that the capital gains tax should be paid as follows, but the above maximum BB did not pay.

B. Occurrence of fraudulent act

In the absence of transfer income tax on the above real estate, Nonparty B transferred the ownership of the real estate listed in the attached Forms 1 and 2 List to the Defendant on November 25, 2010 and December 8, 2010. Although the property jointly formed during the marriage was divided due to division of property, the property is not subject to division of property in excess of the positive property, and the property owned by Nonparty B is not legitimate division of property.

(c) The intention to reduce or conceal the responsible property;

Nonparty B had been notified of the high-amount transfer income tax due to the transfer of the instant real property, resulting in excess of the obligation by making an agreement with the Defendant to evade compulsory enforcement of delinquent property, such as seizure due to non-payment. At the time of the division of property, the lowerB’s small property was 00 won in the amount of national tax, and the positive property was 00 won in the attached Forms 1 and 2, and if it was assessed as the officially assessed value, the total amount of the real property was 00 won in the amount of national tax, and the total amount of the property was 00 won in the amount of national tax already. Therefore, even after the notice of national tax was given, the transfer of the entire property owned as the cause of division of property would have been under excessive division of property, and would have been undermining the tax payer.

D. The defendant's bad faith

Although the defendant received real estate in the attached Forms 1 and 2 as a division of property following the divorce, the defendant, who is the spouse of the non-party B, was aware of the fact that the high-amount national tax was notified to the largestB, and would cause the lack of liability property by making a division of property.

(e) The date when he becomes aware of the fraudulent act;

This fact was known only when the director of Echeon Tax Office printed out on March 10, 201 and reviewed the data on the property status of the delinquent taxpayer in order to understand the property status of the largest BB in order to enforce the default on payment to the largest B.

F. Conclusion

위와 같은 사실로 미루어 피고와 최QQ 사이에 이루어진 이 사건 재산분할은 국세의 체납에 따른 압류 등의 체납처분을 면하고자 조세채권자를 해함을 알면서 이루어진 것으로 피고 또한 그 정을 알았다 할 것이므로 국세징수법 제30조 및 민법 제406 조에 의해 이의 취소를 구하고 그 원상회복으로서 피고 오AA는 별지 제1， 2목록 기재 부동산에 관하여 채무자 명의의 소유권이전등기의 말소등기 절차를 이행할 의무가 있다 할 것이다.

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings;

Article 208(3)1 of the Civil Procedure Act