An act of selling only real estate to his father in excess of debt constitutes a fraudulent act.

Unless there are special circumstances, the conclusion of a sales contract for the sole real estate to his father with a large amount of national tax liability constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the general creditors including the tax claimant, and the debtor and beneficiary's bad faith should be presumed to be revoked as a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2013 Ghana 206186 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

ParkB

February 5, 2014

February 19, 2014

1. The purchase and sale contract on February 2, 2009 between the defendant and ParkA on each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and ParkA shall be revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration completed on February 10, 2009 by the receipt No. 6254 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff.

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

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 20, 2008, the Company ○○○○ Holdings and Park Poe-A’s tax arrears in arrears actually operated the Company ○○○○ Holdings (hereinafter “○○○ Holdings”) closed on March 12, 2009. The head of GG had imposed value-added tax, business income tax, and corporate tax on the instant real estate, but did not pay the ○○○○○ Holdings Holdings. Absent did not pay the global income tax imposed on the instant real estate as a secondary taxpayer on the tax liability of 00,000,000 won based on the notified tax amount as indicated below.

Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate in this case" is the only property of ParkA. The ownership transfer registration for the real estate in this case was made on May 7, 2008 in the name of the defendant, who is his father, on the ground of sale on February 2, 2009 in the name of the defendant, who is his father, was the Busan District Court's dong Branch Branch Office of Busan District Court No. 6254 on February 10, 2009. The ownership transfer registration was made on February 2, 2002.

Income tax, corporate tax, and value-added tax are established when the taxable period expires (see Article 21 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

In light of the above facts, since the obligation to pay the tax claims stipulated in the above table against the plaintiff of the defendant Park Jong-A at the time of the sales contract of this case was all established, the secured claim exists in the lawsuit seeking cancellation of this case, and the act of converting the real property of this case, which is the only property of Park Jong-A, into money which is readily usable by selling and consuming the real property of this case, constitutes a fraudulent act against the general creditor of Park Jong-A, and the intention of the defendant's death, which is the debtor, is presumed to be presumed to be the beneficiary's bad faith.

3. The defendant's assertion

(a) the good faith argument of ParkA;

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant real estate sales contract does not constitute evasion of taxes, in light of the fact that ParkA used the amount of KRW 00 million out of the instant real estate sales price received from the Defendant to repay the investment debt to investors for the normal operation of the company run by ParkA. As seen above, so long as ParkA and the intent to harm the instant sales contract is presumed as alleged, the presumption cannot be deemed to be reversed solely on the ground that the place of use of the sales price was presumed as above. The Defendant’s assertion on this part is rejected.

B. The defendant's bona fide assertion

(1) The argument

Around January 2008, the Defendant became aware of the fact that ParkA made a request to sell the instant real estate to the Busan District Real Estate Agent Office located in ○○○ Dong, Busan. The instant real estate was purchased by the Defendant prior to that time due to the expected price increase, etc., and the Defendant determined that there was an investment value, and the Defendant took over the deposit amount of KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

(A) Relevant legal principles

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary has the burden of proving that the beneficiary was the fraudulent act, and in this case, the objective and objective evidence should be supported when recognizing that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da61280, Jul. 4, 2006) (B).

In this case, it is based on each statement of Nos. 1-1 through 5, and as alleged by the defendant, the defendant or his wife deposited the money borrowed by the defendant or his wife into the account of ParkA and paid KRW 00,000,000 out of the purchase price. It can be recognized that the sales contract and the description of confirmation of the object of brokerage of this case were prepared by the real estate agent, and that the defendant was issued a receipt that he paid taxes, such as real estate brokerage commission and registration tax, and that he paid the fees for certified judicial scrivener. Based on the above facts of recognition, the sales contract of this case seems to have a normal appearance of the transaction.

However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant was not aware of the fraudulent act at the time of the instant sales contract. Rather, considering the following circumstances, the Defendant’s bona fide assertion is not acceptable and the presumption of bad faith is not reversed, in full view of the aforementioned evidence and evidence as well as evidence Nos. 7-1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

1) Relationship between the Defendant and ParkA

In light of the relationship between the defendant and YA, which was shown in the records, such as the defendant's solicitation of the purchase of the real estate of this case from 00 to 00 won, the defendant and F had a 00-dong 200,000 won, and the defendant seems to have been well aware of all the circumstances regarding YA. 2) The abnormal sales contract was completed on May 7, 2008, and the sales contract was completed within this short-term period of 00,000 won. The contract was concluded on February 2, 2009, the date of conclusion of the contract was 00,000 won, and the balance was 00,000 won and 00,000 won, which was 0,000 won and 00,000 won, which was actually paid and received on February 10, 2009.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's argument.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.