In a case where a delinquent taxpayer donates his spouse to a third party and deepens the excess of his liability, the intention of death at the time of donation is presumed.

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary has the burden of proving that the beneficiary was unaware of the fraudulent act, and in this case, there should be objective and objective evidence, etc. that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2017 Ghana 535404

Each remittance is a gift to the Defendants and constitutes a general creditor under the legal principles as seen earlier.

It constitutes a fraudulent act, and it is also presumed that the intention of the non-partyCC to commit the act is also presumed.

① The Defendants are the wife and children of thisCC.

② On October 28, 2016, ○ Construction remitted to the account of Defendant UA on October 28, 2016, KRW 49,755,751 and avoid.

8,215,350 won, which was remitted to thisB, was the money received by thisCC.

③ Each of the above accounts sent by ○○ Construction has been used by the Defendants for a long time.

The accounts of the Defendants are the accounts of the Defendants.

4. The Defendants need to keep a password and seal of the account number required for cash withdrawal by thisCC.

this argument was asserted to be requested to CC and issued to us, but this argument was found to have been accepted.

there is no objective evidence to prove that there is no such evidence.

⑤ The Defendants, upon each remittance of the instant case, have deposited money into their own account in CC.

Although it was asserted that it was immediately withdrawn, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

6. Ultimately, the money deposited through the instant remittance belongs to the Defendants or belongs to the Defendants.

The Defendants seem to have used.

As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they did not fully recognize each of the instant transfers.

B. The beneficiary was unaware that the beneficiary was a fraudulent act in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act.

Recognizing that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, and that the beneficiary had the burden of proof at that time.

shall be subject to objective and acceptable evidence, etc., and either of the debtors

Only a statement that is merely a statement or a statement that is merely a third party's prosecution, at the time of such fraudulent act, the beneficiary

A. He/she shall not conclude that he/she was in good faith (Supreme Court Decision 2004Da61280 Decided July 4, 2006).

See, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do1488, May 1, 201

Rather, in full view of the circumstances as seen earlier, the Defendants perceived each remittance of the instant case.

Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, each gift contract of this case shall be revoked, and the defendants shall make the amount of each gift to the plaintiff.

the date when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive with respect to the money set forth in section 1-2 (b) of this case.

C. It is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and each of them is accepted.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Korea

United StatesAA foreign1

July 12, 2018

August 23, 2018

1. A. Non-Party CC

(1) The Defendant U.S.A’s gift agreement of KRW 49,755,751 on October 28, 2016; and (2) the DefendantB’s gift agreement of KRW 88,215,350 on October 28, 2016, concluded between the Defendant U.S.A.B; and

B. The Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff 49,755,751 won, Defendant B’s 88,215,350 won, and each of the above amounts shall be paid 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the instant judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

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

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. NonpartyCC bears a total of KRW 538,059,750 tax liability against the Plaintiff (the date and time limit for notification of each tax obligation are October 28, 2016).

B. Defendant UA is the spouse of thisCC, and Defendant BB is the children of thisCC.ThisCC is the representative director of ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Construction”). KimD paid KRW 150 million to ○○ Construction as agreed money.

D. On October 28, 2016, ○ Construction remitted KRW 49,755,751 to the ○○ Bank account of Defendant U.S.A. on the same day under the pretext of “Refund of the provisional payment of the amount of 00,755,751 won.” The same day was 41,113,820 won as “CC 14 year 6-12”, and 47,101,530 won as “CC 1-8,530 won”, and 8,215,350 won as “each remittance” (hereinafter referred to as “each remittance”). E.m., on October 28, 2016, 201: ○○○○○○ 】 】 】 】 】 】 】 】 14,1350 won as “each remittance of the amount of 401,51,750 won as 50 won, 157,15750 won and 157.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 13 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Claims to be preserved by the right to revoke fraudulent act;

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff has a tax claim against the non-partyCC and its maturity has already arrived.

B. Whether the fraudulent act was established

"Juristic act detrimental to creditors who are the requirements for obligee's right of revocation" means a juristic act which makes it impossible to fully satisfy the obligee's claims because there is a shortage of joint security of claims due to a decrease in the obligor's assets due to the act of disposal of the obligor's assets or a lack of joint security prior to the shortage of claims. Thus, such fraudulent act is prior to the obligor

(1) The Defendant’s intent to commit an act of donation is presumed to have been presumed to have infringed upon the obligee’s intent at the time of the act of donation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da82360, Feb. 23, 2012). The Defendant’s intent to commit an act of donation is presumed to have been presumed to have infringed upon the obligee’s intent to commit an act of donation, in cases where the obligor’s intent to commit an act of donation falls short of the obligor’s obligation due to inclusion of the obligation in a small property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da82360, Feb. 23, 2012).

In full view of the following circumstances revealed in light of the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, each of the instant transfers appears to have been donated to the Defendants, and as seen earlier, thisCC was in excess of its obligation at the time of each of the instant donations [affirmative KRW 191,971,101 (= KRW 137,971,101 + KRW 54 million). Such transfers were in excess of its obligation (affirmative KRW 137,971,101 + KRW 54 million), small property KRW 538,059,750).