Where the debtor's completion of the registration of ownership transfer for real estate under his/her name is null and void pursuant to the title trust agreement, such real estate does not include the debtor'

If a debtor completes the registration of ownership transfer of real estate in his/her name in accordance with the title trust agreement, the main sentence of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name is applied, and the above registration in the name of the debtor is null and void. Thus, since the above real estate is not owned by the debtor, it cannot be deemed a responsible

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

2013 Ghana 104582 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

1.A 2. YellowB

October 16, 2014

December 18, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

With respect to the real estate stated in the attached list, the sales contract concluded on February 17, 2010 between Non-Party Jung-CC and the Defendants was revoked, and the Defendants implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer for restitution due to the revocation of fraudulent act to Jung-CC.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 1, 2010, the head of the Busan District Tax Office imposed the global income tax on August 31, 2010 by setting the payment deadline on the aggregate of the pre-existing labor income amount of the fixedCC and on August 31, 2010, the estimated income amount for 2006 business year of the non-party company was disposed of as bonus to the regularCC and notified the changes in income amount.

B. JeongCC currently did not pay taxes to OOO members.

C. On February 17, 2010, 2012, 199, 199, 199, 200, 200, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

[Ground of recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The instant sales contract, which was sold to the Defendants of the instant real estate, which was a property of fixedCC, constitutes a fraudulent act, under the high probability of the head of the tax office’s disposal of bonus to the fixedCC on February 1, 2010, and notification of change in income and notification of change in income, has already been established as a basis for the establishment of claims prior to February 17, 2010, and the claim has been established in the near future based on such legal relationship.

(2) The defendants' assertion

Although the registered title of the instant real estate is the name of JungCC, it is originally purchased by the Defendants and transferred to the Defendants, so the instant sales contract does not constitute a fraudulent act.

B. Determination

(1) If the debtor completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the real estate in accordance with the title trust agreement, the main sentence of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “the Act”), is null and void, and since the above real estate is not owned by the debtor, it cannot be deemed as a responsible property attributable to the debtor’s common creditors’s joint security. Even if the debtor concluded a sales contract with a third party on the above real estate and completed the registration of ownership transfer to that third party, it cannot be deemed as causing a decrease in the debtor’s responsible property. Thus, it cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act detrimental to the debtor’s general creditors, and it cannot be deemed that the debtor has an intention to cause harm to the debtor (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da5069, Mar. 10, 200). In addition, Article 4(3) of the Act provides that the invalidity of the change in real right by the title trust agreement and the registration made pursuant thereto cannot be asserted against a third party, and thus, the title trustee cannot be deemed as a new person (see, 250.

(2) In full view of the facts that return to the instant case, health zone, dispute, and no clear dispute were raised, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant real estate was owned by DaD. The ownership transfer registration was completed on May 23, 2003 under the name of CC on the ground of sale and purchase on April 16, 2003. JungCC, as was born on January 17, 197, was serving as public duty personnel from April 17, 200 to August 27, 2002, which had not been established under the name of 26 years old at the time of acquisition of the instant real estate, and was not established under the name of OCC as a trustee of the instant real estate under the name of OCC, which had not been established under the name of 26 years old from the date of acquisition of the instant real estate under the name of OCC, and the Defendants had not completed the registration of the instant real estate under the name of 20.

Therefore, since the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of JungCC on the instant real estate is null and void pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the instant real estate is not owned by JungCC, but is not a responsible property for common creditors’ joint security. Thus, even if JungCC concluded a sales contract on the instant real estate and completed the registration of transfer of ownership to the Defendants as alleged by the Plaintiff, it does not constitute a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors of the

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the real estate in this case is the responsibilities property of CC is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.