Fraudulent Act

The fact that the registration of ownership transfer of land has been completed during the period of tax investigation is insufficient to recognize that it is a title trust.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2015 Ghana 12751 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AA

2016.19

oly 2016.17

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant will implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of the restoration of real name with respect to 275 square meters of real name with respect to DD, O-O-O-O, large 275 square meters to BB.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 and the purport of all pleadings:

A. On December 1, 2012, the Plaintiff notified BB of KRW 153,516,920 of the transfer income tax. As the Plaintiff did not pay it, the Plaintiff’s tax claim against BB reaches KRW 211,546,220 as of November 24, 2015.

B. On September 26, 2012, BB completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of trade reservation with respect to the land of OO-OO-O-275 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) to GG on September 26, 2012, BB completed the registration of transfer of ownership on October 2, 2012.

C. On December 2, 2014, GG completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land to the Defendant on November 4, 2014.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

BB borrowed KRW 40,00,000 from GG for real estate purchase, but failed to repay the above loan amount to KRW 40,000,000, interest rate of KRW 15,000,000, and claimed to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to GG for payment of KRW 10,000,000 in cash. However, in fact, BB was entrusted to GG without the intention to actually transfer the instant land to GG, but it was again entrusted to the Defendant after the termination of title trust. However, the registration of real estate title trust agreement and title trust is null and void. Accordingly, the registration of the Defendant’s name on the instant land is null and void. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to complete the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land due to the recovery of real name, and the Plaintiff is the obligee of BB, who is the obligee of BB, and the need to preserve the said registration of ownership transfer.

3. Determination

In full view of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and the purport of the entire pleadings, BB filed a return of capital gains tax and bears tax liability against the Plaintiff; BB completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the land of this case to GG during the period during which a tax investigation related to the capital gains tax was conducted; BB was operating a restaurant at that time; and the Defendant’s fraudulent act is recognized. However, it is insufficient to recognize that BB solely entrusted the registration title without the intention to transfer the land of this case to GG or the Defendant; and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.