The gift of a check constitutes a fraudulent act to which the property of the check was donated to another person in excess of the obligation.

The fact that the customer was found to have omitted in excess of his/her obligation by donation of the check to the Defendant is deemed to have been led to the confession by the Defendant’s failure to clearly dispute the Plaintiff’s assertion. As such, the debtor constitutes a fraudulent act that donated his/her property

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012Du200017 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

CC KimCC

July 11, 2012

July 18, 2012

1. The contract of gift of KRW 000, which was concluded on April 8, 2011 between the Defendant and BBB, shall be revoked.

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

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Tax claims against BBB by the Plaintiff

As of January 4, 2012, with respect to BB, the Plaintiff owned value-added tax claim for the amount of principal tax and additional tax for the second period of 2000 won for the total amount of principal tax and additional tax, and the date on which the tax payment obligation is established is December 31, 2010, and the payment period is April 15, 201.

B. The process of paying money to the Defendant

On February 18, 201, BB received 000 won of the national tax refund due to the request for correction of value-added tax from one bank account under its name, and on March 7, 201, issued cashier's checks (4 pages of 000 won of the face value) equivalent to the total face value of 00 won. However, on April 8, 2011, 4 copies of the said checks were deposited into one bank account under the name of the Defendant, the joint representative director of BBB, the Defendant.

(c) the financial status of BBB;

At the time BBBB pays the above money, the property status shall be as follows:

[Basis of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's low-u or 6 evidence (if there are natural disasters, including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Formation of preserved claims

The facts that the Plaintiff’s tax liability establishment date, notification date, and four checks were deposited into the above single bank account under the Defendant’s name before September 26, 201, are not disputed against the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the above tax claim can be regarded as the preserved claim to revoke the fraudulent act. Accordingly, the Defendant, and the actual obligor of the above tax claim is not the BBB but the treatment automobile sales company, and thus, cannot be the preserved claim to revoke the fraudulent act. However, the obligor bears the duty to pay taxes regardless of who is the person who actually prepares funds for tax payment, so the obligor bears the duty to pay taxes, and even if the treatment automobile sales company as alleged by the Defendant was to pay the above tax claim, the obligor is the BBBBB. The Defendant’s argument is without merit.

(b) The debtor's fraudulent act;

1) As seen earlier, four checks were as above, and each of them was deposited into the account in the name of the defendant on April 8, 201, approximately one month after the date of issuance of BB, and the amount of 00 won is considered to have been donated to BB to the defendant. On March 7, 2011, the defendant, and the BBB were not given four copies of the above checks, and the defendant's joint representative director was not given a retirement allowance of 00 won, and the amount was again paid again to the defendant, who was the wife. The defendant did not pay the remaining amount of 00 DNA retirement pay to BD 1 as stated above, and the defendant did not pay the remaining amount of 00 DNA retirement pay to BD 1 as stated in BD 7. The defendant's remaining amount of 00,000,000 won, and the defendant did not pay the retirement pay to BD 20,0000 won as stated in BD 17,000.

2) The fact that BBB, as above, was placed in excess of its obligation by donation of check money to the Defendant is deemed to have been led to confession as the Defendant did not clearly contest the Plaintiff’s assertion. Since the obligor’s donation of one’s own property to another under excess of its obligation constitutes a fraudulent act, and the donation of check money to the Defendant of BBB constitutes a fraudulent act.

(c) Presumption of the debtor's intent to commit harm and beneficiary's bad faith;

It is presumed that BBB’s gift to the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act, and that the above company was aware that it would result in a decrease in common creditors’ joint security. The Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary as long as it is recognized as the intention of the year of BBBB’s corporate debtor, as long as it is recognized as the intention of the year of BBBB’s corporate debtor.

(d) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

A contract of donation of KRW 000,00, which was concluded on April 8, 201 between BBB and the Defendant on April 8, 201, constitutes a fraudulent act and revoked. The fact that all of the above money deposited into the Defendant’s account is consumed is deemed to have been led to confession because the Plaintiff’s assertion is not clearly disputed by the Defendant. As such, it is impossible to restore the said money by the method of original return following the cancellation of fraudulent act, and as a compensation for value, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 00 and 5% per annum as provided by the Civil Act from the day following the day when the

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.