Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Unless there are special circumstances, the registration of ownership transfer due to sale to the former spouse of real estate which is the only property in default of national taxes constitutes a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration of Fraudulent Act

2017 Ghana 101920 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

New △△△

April 19, 2017

May 10, 2017

1. To revoke a sales contract concluded by the defendant and Do governor (resident registration number ¡¿ ¡¿ ¡¿ ¡¿ ¡¿ ¡¿ ¡¿ ¡¿ ¡¿ ¡¿ ¡¿ ¡¿ ¡¿ ¡¿ ¡¿ ¡¿) on real estate entered in the attached list between the defendant and Do governor;

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by heading ***87 on May 3, 2016 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the above △△△△△ branch court of the Incheon District Court in Incheon District Court and Kimpo registry office of the Incheon District Court

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Tax liability to the Plaintiff by △△△△△

1) From September 3, 1996 to February 2, 2016, ○○○○○○ (Seoul x Gu x ○○○○○○○ (OO-O) operated in the name of △○○○. However, on February 2, 2016, the said real estate was transferred to another person, and the head of the competent tax office made a preliminary return on capital gains tax.

2) On July 10, 2016, the head of ○○○ Tax Office decided July 10, 2016 as the due date for payment, and notified △△△△△ to pay KRW 00,000,000 as capital gains tax, and August 31, 2016 as the due date for payment, and to pay KRW 00,00,000 as global income tax for the year 2015 pertaining to the said inn business.

(b) Disposition by △△△;

1) On April 22, 2016, 2016 with regard to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”), which is the only real estate owned by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) and based on the sales contract with the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) and completed the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt***87 on May 3, 2016 to the Defendant of Incheon District Court’s Busan Branch Kimpo-

2) The sales contract of this case provides for KRW 00,00,000 for the sales proceeds of this case’s real estate, and provides that the sales proceeds of this case’s real estate was concluded through the brokerage of licensed real estate agents Kim Man-kil, but at the time of the actual conclusion of the sales contract, the Defendant did not pay the sales proceeds to △△△. Meanwhile, the Defendant was the spouse of △△△, but was divorced on October 27,

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1, and whole purport of pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Formation of preserved claims

The legal relationship, which forms the basis of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax and global income tax, was finally created on February 2, 2016. Before the conclusion of the instant sales contract, △△△△△ was highly probable to the effect that the claim is to be established in the near future by filing the said transfer income tax and global income tax, etc. The Plaintiff’s taxation claim against △△△△△△△ was realized since the tax claim against the Plaintiff was made after the date of the instant sales contract and the date of imposition of capital gains tax and global income tax became more realistic. Thus, the Plaintiff’

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

Unless there are special circumstances, selling the instant real estate, which is the only property of △△△△△ at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, to the Defendant constitutes fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, which is the creditor, and △△△ and the Defendant’

C. Whether the defendant acted in good faith

The defendant also asserted that the defendant was not aware that the contract of this case was prejudicial to other creditors because it was merely a fact that the defendant received the real estate in this case under the pretext of payment in kind, and entered into the contract of this case on the ground that it did not know that the contract of this case was prejudicial to other creditors.

According to the facts found above, △△△ has sold the place of business it operated and entered into the sales contract of this case immediately after filing a report on capital gains tax, etc., and the defendant and △△△△△△ have given a lot of time of public performance while performing the same, and the defendant also stated that he was unable to receive the debts from △△△△△. In full view of the fact that △△△△'s debts were known to him, it is difficult to recognize the defendant's good faith merely with the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 submitted by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

(d) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Therefore, the instant sales contract concluded between △△ and the Defendant regarding the instant real estate shall be revoked, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration which completed with respect to the instant real estate.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is justified and accepted.