payment on behalf of a debtor for a specific creditor in excess of the liability constitutes a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances.

Even if the defendant has a certain claim against the non-party company, the debtor in excess of his/her obligation constitutes a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances to the contrary.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Ghana 104052 Revocation of fraudulent act

Korea

XX

August 29, 2012

September 19, 2012

1. A. A. The purchase and sale agreement between the Defendant and the Co., Ltd. on August 26, 201 with respect to the shares of 624/824 square meters of 8168 square meters of Chungcheong-gun, Cheong-gu, Cheong-gun, Cheong-gun, Cheong-gun, Cheong-gun, Cheong-do.

B. The Defendant shall implement the procedure to register cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on August 26, 201 by the Cheongju District Court No. 12000 on August 26, 201 with respect to the share of 624/824 square meters of 8168 square meters of the Cheongju District Court 18-7 Forest land of Song-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do,

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The Plaintiff, as of January 31, 2010 to June 30, 201, had the recommended business income tax, corporate tax, value-added tax, earned income tax, and other national tax claims 00 won against the Defendant on August 26, 2011, the Plaintiff sold the shares of 624/8 728 m26/8 m200 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant on the same day (hereinafter “instant contract”). As of August 26, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff: (a) as of August 26, 201; (b) as of June 30, 201, the Plaintiff owned the obligation exceeding active property; (c) the Defendant was the pro rata representative director of the instant real estate; (d) the sales contract between the Defendant and the Defendant on the instant real estate, and (e) the sales contract between the Defendant and the Defendant on August 26, 2011, without dispute between the parties to the instant contract.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s selling of the instant real estate to the Defendant is a fraudulent act against the obligees.

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, the sale of the instant real estate to the Defendant, who is the friendly parent of the representative director, is judged as a fraudulent act against the obligees unless there are special circumstances. The Defendant, a beneficiary, is also presumed to have been malicious.

Therefore, the instant real estate sales contract between the Defendant and XX is revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate to XX.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the sum of KRW 24,700,000 was paid to P Co., Ltd. from March 25, 2010 to July 13, 201, and that it would have become a purchaser of the instant real estate for that reason, according to each description of evidence Nos. 2 (including paper numbers) 1, 200, 200, 200, 2000, 28.00, 2000, and 13, 200 on July 13, 2011, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant’s assertion that the date of sale of the instant real estate stated in the contract form for sale of the instant real estate had a specific claim against the obligee from around July 17, 201, as long as it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant’s obligation to pay the instant real estate from around August 26, 2011, is still difficult to accept.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the actual party to the real estate sales contract of this case is the representative director of corporation XX and the mother of the defendant, and that the real estate of this case was purchased at an adequate price. However, the defendant's submission of evidence can not be admitted in full, and even if the defendant's assertion is true, it is insufficient to reverse the presumption of bad faith of the beneficiary.

4. Conclusion

The sales contract concluded on August 26, 201 with the Defendant for the instant real estate should be revoked as a fraudulent act. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration that completed with respect to the instant real estate in XX.

The plaintiff's claim is accepted.