Any act of entering into an agreement on the diversion of provisional registration constitutes a fraudulent act.

An act of making an agreement on the diversion of provisional registration of real estate which is the sole property of a delinquent debtor constitutes a fraudulent act as a reduction in the joint security of a general creditor.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act and Restoration to Original State)

2013 Ghana 111362 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Madil

2014.05.13

2014.06.17

1. The sales contract concluded on February 1, 2013 between the defendant and Gangwon○○ (**************) is revoked.

2. The Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed by the head of ○○ District Court on March 5, 2013, received on March 5, 2013.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings]

A. The head of ○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office’s jurisdiction is the value-added tax and its final determination for the first period of 2008.

Value-added tax, value-added tax and final value-added tax for the second year of 2008, global income tax for the year 2007, global income tax for interim prepayment and global income tax for the year 2008 as listed in the following table. The total amount of arrears as of June 2013 is KRW 160,48,770, because ○○ did not pay the said tax until now.

B. On February 1, 2001 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), which was owned by △△△, on the ground of sale and purchase on March 5, 2001, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of ○○○ District Court was completed on March 5, 2001, and on March 23, 2001, the provisional registration of ownership transfer under the name of ○○○○○ was completed on the ground of a pre-sale on March 24, 2001 by the same court No. 18251 on March 24, 2001 (hereinafter “instant provisional registration”). Based on the above provisional registration, the provisional registration was completed on February 1, 201, on the ground of the receipt of 1434 of March 5, 2013, the principal registration in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant registration”).

C. The instant real estate was the only real estate owned by ○○○, and the strong ○○ did not have any other property.

2. Determination

(a) the base point of time for the requirement of fraudulent act;

(1) Where a principal registration has been made on the basis of provisional registration, legal act which is the cause of provisional registration and principal registration.

Unless a juristic act which is the cause clearly different, the requirement for a fraudulent act should be determined at the time of the juristic act that is the cause of provisional registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da41589, Nov. 8, 2002).

Meanwhile, the right to conclude a pre-contract is a kind of right to form and sell, if the parties have agreed to exercise the period of exercise, within such period, and within 10 years from the time when the pre-contract is made, and the right to conclude the pre-contract becomes extinct upon the lapse of the exclusion period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da26425, Jan. 10, 2003).

2) In light of the above legal principles, the sales reservation, which is the cause of the provisional registration of this case, was made on March 23, 2001.

As seen earlier, the right to conclude the provisional registration of this case was extinguished at the expiration of the exclusion period on March 24, 201, which was ten years after the tenth anniversary of the establishment. As such, the provisional registration of this case was extinguished, and the principal registration of this case was completed on the basis of the provisional registration of this case, which was null and void on February 1, 2013, based on which the cause was extinguished, on the basis of sale and purchase as of February 1, 2013. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the agreement was reached between Gangwon○ and the Defendant on the use of provisional registration of this case as of February 1, 201, which was the cause of the provisional registration of this case. Thus, whether the requirements for fraudulent act were satisfied should be determined at the time of sale and purchase as of March 23, 201, which was the cause of the provisional registration of this case, rather than at the time of the reservation on March 23, 201, which was the cause of the provisional registration of this case.

3) As to this, the Defendant purchased the instant real estate, and held the title trust to Gangnam○○.

B. The provisional registration of this case was completed in order to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration or the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price of the real estate in title trust, and the Defendant leased the pertinent real estate to Gangwon○○○, and requested Gangwon○○ to repay part of the interest and principal of the loan that he borrowed from the instant real estate on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant. As such, the exclusion period does not apply to the act causing the provisional registration of this case, and the extinctive prescription of the right to claim ownership transfer registration or the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment has also been interrupted. Accordingly, the provisional registration of this case is still valid, and the principal registration of this case has been completed on the basis of the provisional registration of this case. Accordingly, the issue of whether the requirements for fraudulent act are satisfied should be determined at the time of the promise to sell on March 23, 201, which is the cause

Magress, Category B 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14 (including all numbered ones)

According to the statement, the defendant's transfer registration on June 11, 1991 No. 202 Dong-dong No. 202, Oct. 20, 195, the ownership transfer registration on one parcel of land outside ○○○○○○○○○, and the same Ri-dong land, and the ownership transfer registration on one unit of land outside ○○○○○○○○○, Dong-dong, ○○○○○○, and its own land on its ground, are completed on April 8, 2005, and it appears that the defendant had a right to the real estate under the name of ○○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, 2000 won.

In light of the above facts and the remaining evidence submitted by the defendant alone are insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant purchased the real estate of this case and held the title trust to Gangwon ○○, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit without further review.

4) Next, the Defendant asserts that the right to complete the pre-sale agreement based on the pre-sale agreement was not extinguished by the limitation period, since the Defendant had already exercised the right to complete the purchase and sale agreement by demanding the Defendant to make the instant real estate completed the principal registration based on the provisional registration of the instant case against Gangwon ○ around 2010. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant exercised the right to complete the pre-sale agreement on the basis of the pre-sale agreement, which is the underlying act of the instant provisional registration, around 2010. However, there is no reason to believe that the Defendant had exercised the right to complete the pre

(b) The establishment and reinstatement of fraudulent acts;

1) According to the above facts of recognition, the real estate in this case, which is the only property of the debtor Gangnam ○○.

The above agreement between the defendant and the defendant on the utilization of provisional registration of this case constitutes a fraudulent act as an act of reducing the joint security of ordinary creditors (Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the pre-sale promise, which caused the provisional registration of this case, is a fraudulent act is not accepted), and the Gangwon ○, which is the debtor, was aware that it would thereby prejudice the general creditor, and the defendant's bad faith, which is the beneficiary, is presumed.

The defendant alleged that he was bona fide, but the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is alone.

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

2) Therefore, the order of Gangwon-style and the instant real estate between the Defendant, formed by agreement on the utilization of the above registration.

On February 1, 2013, the sales contract on February 1, 2013 should be revoked by fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration with respect to the real estate in this case to Gangwon○.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.