The act of selling the instant real estate in excess of debt to the Defendant who is a fraud is a fraudulent act.

The Nonparty’s act of selling the instant real estate in excess of debt is a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is the Nonparty’s creditor, and the Nonparty’s intention and the Defendant’s bad faith, who is the beneficiary, should be presumed, so the sales contract between the Nonparty and the Defendant should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2017 Ghana 26095 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AA

April 10, 2018

July 17, 2018

1. A. The sales contract concluded on March 15, 2016 between the Defendant and Nonparty BB is revoked.

B. On March 15, 2016, the Defendant completed the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration in accordance with the receipt No. 8089, which was completed on March 15, 2016, with respect to the real estate listed in attached Table 1 to Nonparty BB.

2. A. A. The sales contract concluded on March 15, 2016 between the Defendant and Nonparty BB with respect to the real estate listed in the [Attachment List 2] shall be revoked within the scope of ○○○○○.

B. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The sales contract concluded on March 15, 2016 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 between the Defendant and Nonparty BB is revoked. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day following the day on which the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

(a) Formation of a taxation claim against BB;

The director of the tax office of the Plaintiff-affiliated ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, as the name of “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○,” confirmed that BB, which run a wholesale and retail business, omitted income from using the borrowed account, and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax for the performance from January 201 to February 201, 201, and the global income tax for the year 2014 from the global income tax for the performance of the second year from the global income tax for the year 2011 and the global income tax for the year 2014 as the due date for payment on June 30, 2016. The global income tax for the year 2015 was voluntarily reported by BB on May 24, 2016, but did not pay it, thereby notifying the Plaintiff’s global income tax of the due date for payment on August 31, 2016.

BB fails to pay each of the above taxes, and on October 17, 2017, national taxes are delinquent as follows:

The taxation claim of this case(hereinafter referred to as "the taxation claim of this case").

(b)transfer of the real estate listed in Appendix 1 and that listed in Appendix 2;

BB on March 8, 2016, the Defendant, a fraud, determined and sold the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 and the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estate”) as the sales price of ○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”). On March 15, 2016, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 15, 2016 as the Busan District Court’s Seoul Western District Court No. 8089 on March 15, 2016.

On the other hand, on June 1, 2016, the registration of creation of a mortgage, which was established as ○○○○○, the debtor, the debtor, and the creditor of the right to collateral security, was completed on June 1, 2016. On the same day, the registration of creation of a mortgage, which was established as ○○○○○○○, the debtor, BB, and the right to collateral security, was revoked on the grounds of termination.

(c) details of the BB’s property;

At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, BB’s active property did not exist except each of the instant real property. Petty property had the obligation to ○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., other than value-added tax and global income tax.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 5 and Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including partial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Formation of preserved claims

According to the facts of Paragraph 1, at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the basic legal relations of the Plaintiff’s instant tax claim against BB were established, and there was a high probability that the amount of national taxes will be notified in the near future. In fact, the probability of the instant tax claim against BB was realized in the near future, and the instant tax claim against BB was established, and thus, the obligee’s right of revocation becomes the preserved claim

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

An obligor’s act of selling real estate, which is its sole property, and replacing it with or transferring it to another person without compensation, constitutes a fraudulent act against a creditor, barring special circumstances. Therefore, the obligor’s intent of deception is presumed, and the burden of proving that the purchaser or transferee did not maliciously perform his/her duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001).

However, as seen earlier, inasmuch as BB sold each of the instant real estate to the Defendant under the circumstances where the Plaintiff had no particular assets other than each of the instant real estate, the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is the obligee, and at the time BB knew that the shortage of joint security would result in the shortage of joint security to the obligee, and furthermore, the Defendant, who is the beneficiary, is presumed to have been malicious.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff may exercise the right of revocation against the Defendant and seek restitution.

(c) Methods of reinstatement and scope of revocation of fraudulent act;

(1) The real estate listed in the annex No. 1

BB and the Defendant’s sales contract concluded on March 15, 2016 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2016 should be revoked as a fraudulent act. As such, the Defendant, the beneficiary, is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on March 15, 2016 by the Busan District Court Decision 8089, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which

(2) The real estate listed in the annex No. 2

In a case where the establishment registration of a mortgage was cancelled due to repayment, etc. after the fraudulent act was committed with respect to a real estate on which the right to revoke the fraudulent act and ordering the recovery of the real estate itself would result in a violation of the fairness and fairness as an order to restore the portion which was not previously secured by the general creditors. Thus, the value of the real estate may be revoked within the extent of the balance remaining after deducting the secured amount from the secured amount of the right to collateral from the value of the real estate, and only the compensation for the value thereof may be sought. Such value calculation shall be based on the time of the closing of argument at the trial court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da33734, Dec. 27, 2001). In a case where the creditor exercises the right to revoke the right to revoke, in principle, he/she cannot exercise the right to revoke beyond his/her claim, but in this case, the creditor’s claim amount includes the interest or delay damages accrued from the time of closing of argument at the trial court (see, e.g.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, which was completed on June 1, 2016, after the instant sales contract, was revoked on the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2, as seen in paragraph (1). Therefore, the instant sales contract on the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 shall be revoked within the extent that the amount of secured debt, which was revoked at the time of the closing of the instant argument, is deducted from the value of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 at the time of the closing of the instant argument

According to the evidence No. 5, the value of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 around June 14, 2017 is acknowledged as having been ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (only on the ground of the evidence No. 5 alone, it is insufficient to recognize that the secured debt amount of the above secured mortgage was ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○) at the closing date.

Clearly named.

Therefore, the sales contract concluded on March 15, 2016 between BB and the Defendant on the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 shall be revoked as a fraudulent act within the limit of ○○○○○○○, and the Defendant, the beneficiary, is obliged to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day after the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that the sales contract of this case is not fraudulent since the defendant paid the purchase price to BB properly and purchased each real estate of this case, and that the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary since he did not know that the contract of this case would prejudice the plaintiff.

B. Determination

BB’s conclusion of the instant sales contract with the Defendant in excess of the debt. Accordingly, barring any special circumstance, the act of a debtor in excess of the debt constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring any special circumstance, and the act of changing the debtor into money which is easily consumed by selling his/her own real estate constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41523, Nov. 24, 200). Thus, the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance, and the Defendant’s assertion contrary thereto is rejected.

Furthermore, as the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act, the beneficiary must prove that he/she was unaware of the beneficiary's failure to harm the creditor at the time of the pertinent legal act. In such cases, whether the beneficiary was aware of the harm to the creditor shall be determined reasonably in accordance with logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary, the details of the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary, and the background or motive leading up to the act of disposal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da272311, Apr. 10, 208). Each of the statements in subparagraphs 3 through 11, 2018, by itself, the defendant, as the creditor of

In short, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be partly accepted within the scope of the above recognition.