property donated for the purpose of evading disposition on default shall constitute fraudulent act.

It should be viewed that the spouse was aware of the fact that he/she donated the debtor's property for the purpose of evading disposition on default, and that this constitutes a fraudulent act that was concluded to be exempted from disposition on default, such as seizure due to default on national taxes.

2013 Ghana 15029 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

KimAA 2 others

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

March 15, 2013

1.As to the attached list 1 and 2 as to the real estate, and

A. The gift agreement concluded on July 12, 2012 between Nonparty KimB and Defendant KimB, and Defendant KimB and Defendant KimCC is revoked.

B. Defendant KimA and Defendant KimCC each implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on July 17, 2012 by the receipt No. 7645, which was sent to the Cheongju District Court to Nonparty KimB.

2. Appendix 1 List 3, with respect to real estate, and

A. The respective gift agreements entered into on July 18, 2012 between Nonparty KimB and Defendant ParkD are revoked. B. Defendant Park Dong-ju District Court, Cheongju District Court, which completed on July 20, 2012 as the receipt No. 7819, will implement the registration procedure for cancellation of each transfer of ownership.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of the claim;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

2. Applicable legal provisions;

Judgment without Oral Pleading (Article 208 (3) 1 and Article 257 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

Grounds of Claim

1. Formation of preserved claims;

(a) Circumstances of taxation;

The director of the tax office of Youngdo under the Plaintiff notified the non-party KimB (hereinafter referred to as the "debtor") of the additional payment of the value-added tax amount of KRW 000 on January 2012 and the income tax amount of KRW 000 on the wrongful appropriation of necessary expenses in 2008, 2010, and 2011, but the national tax is in arrears as of the date of the institution of the lawsuit.

B. Establishment of preserved claims

Value-added tax and income tax are the date when the taxable period ends. Since value-added tax imposed on January 30, 2012 is the date when the tax liability is established, income tax is the date when the tax liability is established on December 31, 2008, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2010, December 31, 201, December 31, 201, July 12, 2012 and July 18, 2012, which is the date when the tax liability is established, there has already been a basic legal relationship, and there was a high probability that the claim will be established in the near future, and thus, it can be the creditor's right of revocation's right of revocation.

2. Fraudulent act;

From July 5, 2012 to July 2012, 2012, the debtor received a notice from the Daejeon Regional Tax Office to submit explanatory data on suspicion of wrongful appropriation as necessary expenses in connection with the audit of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office, and the debtor's land Chungcheongbuk-do, o-do, 00, 00, o-ri-ri, 000, o-ri, o-ri, o-ri, 000, and o-ri, o-ri, o-ri, Ma-ri, Ma-ri, Ma-ri (hereinafter "the real property of this case"), and transferred ownership to the defendant 1, 2, and 3, his spouse, thereby making it impossible to obtain the satisfaction of the taxation claim. (No. 1-4, i.e., evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2)

3. Insolvent;

The debtor, on the ground of the donation on July 12, 2012, the active property owned at 1/3 of the Mafl 00, ofl 000, ofl 000, ofl 000, ofl ofl ofl ofl ofl ofl ofl ofl ofl ofl o00, ofl o o o o o o00, Ma-ri o o o o00, Ma-ri, Cheongbuk-do, Cheongbuk-do, Ma-do, Mari-do, and Cheongbuk-do. The debtor, on the ground of the donation on July 12, 2012, was 00 won, ofl ofl ofl ofl ofl o, ofl o, and 1/2 of the real property donated to the spouse.

4. Bad faith of the defendant

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are the debtor's siblings, and Defendant 3 is expected to impose taxes on his spouse, and it should be viewed that he was aware of the fact that he donated the debtor's property for the purpose of evading the disposition on default, and that he was aware of his will to understand.

5. The date on which he becomes aware of a fraudulent act;

On November 16, 2012, the Plaintiff became aware of the fraudulent act committed between the debtor and the Defendants through the perusal of the certified copy of the register in order to investigate the disposition of arrears on November 16, 2012.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, in light of the above facts, the registration of transfer of ownership on the real estate of this case between the debtor and the defendants is to be concluded with the knowledge that it would prejudice the plaintiff, who is a taxation right holder, to be exempted from the disposition of default on national taxes imposed by the superintendent of the tax office under the jurisdiction of the plaintiff, such as seizure in arrears, etc.