Determination on whether a beneficiary is bona fide shall be made by comprehensively taking into account whether there are no special circumstances.

Although each contract of the sales contract of this case states that the registration of ownership transfer concerning the real estate of this case is completed at the same time as the remaining payment, BB completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the entire real estate of this case under the status that only a part of the contract was received from the defendant as the purchase price, it is insufficient to view that the defendant's good faith as the beneficiary was proved

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2014 Ghana 33938 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

○ ○

oly 2015.13

oly, 2015.24

1. The sales contract concluded on October 0, 00 between the defendant and BB on the real estate listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached Table Nos. 1 and 2 and the sales contract concluded on July 5, 2012 on the real estate listed in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the attached Table is revoked.

2. The defendant shall not be less than BB:

A. In relation to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list, 00 district court 00 registry office of October 0, 000, the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 0000 on receipt of the attached list is implemented;

(b) Procedures for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the reinstatement shall be implemented with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list Nos. 2 through 4;

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. BB on October 00, 000, sold to CCC a building of 00 00 -00 -00 00 -00 - 000 - 000 - its ground, and on October 0, 00 of the same year, BB completed the registration of ownership transfer to CCC and did not report the transfer income tax at the competent tax office.

B. Around July 2012, the Plaintiff-affiliated 00 years of age, set and notified the BB of the transfer income tax on the transfer of the said real estate as the due date for payment on October 0, 2000.

C. Meanwhile, on October 0, 000, BB entered into a sales contract with the Defendant, who is a partner of the company, to sell the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name with respect to each of the above real estate on the 10th of the same month. BB entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on October 0, 000 that sells the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 and 4 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “the above two sales contracts together with the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 and 4) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”). At the time of entering into the sales contract, BB completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name with respect to each of the above real estate on the 11st of the same month.

D. BB did not hold, at the time of the instant sales contract, an obvious property other than the instant real estate and Busan 00,000-0 and 000-0 real estate (hereinafter “real estate”), and the total officially assessed value of real estate, including 000-0 and 000-0, was 3,2720,000 won.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 4, and 7, Eul's statements in Eul's 1 and 5 (including each number), witness's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Formation of preserved claims

According to the above facts, since BB transferred real estate subject to taxation at around 2009 and the obligation to pay capital gains tax to the Plaintiff was abstractly established, the legal relationship which is the basis of the occurrence of capital gains tax claims has already been established, and there was a high probability that BB’s transfer income tax claims may occur in the near future because BB failed to make preliminary returns of capital gains tax, etc., and in fact, the Plaintiff was issued a disposition of capital gains tax on July 2012, and thus the relevant probability was realized, and the transfer income tax claim against BB was created. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s transfer income

(b) The establishment of fraudulent acts and intent to injure them;

In accordance with the purport of each description of the above facts and evidence Nos. 7 and 8 and the whole pleadings, BB appears to have completed the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate of this case with the payment of the purchase price of KRW 30 million or KRW 40 million under the contract of this case. Although the total purchase price of this case was KRW 140 million after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate of this case, even if the defendant added the purchase price of this case to BB after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer, it would not exceed KRW 90 million (this is argued that the defendant decided to purchase the real estate of this case, unlike the sales contract of this case, the contents of the contract of this case are to purchase the real estate of KRW 90 million,000,000,000,000,000 under the contract of this case. However, even if it is alleged by the defendant, it is not reasonable to deem that the sale of the real estate of this case constitutes a fraudulent act of KRW 14,000,00.

BB was aware that the transfer income tax was imposed within the nearest time because BB did not make a preliminary return of transfer income tax after selling real estate subject to taxation at around 2009.

3. Determination as to the defendant's assertion

The Defendant: (a) occupied and cultivated the instant real estate from the Defendant’s fleet in around 2010; and (b) paid the purchase price under the instant sales contract. The Defendant asserted that the instant sales contract was not known as a fraudulent act; (c) due to the presumption of the beneficiary’s bad faith in a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit, the beneficiary must prove his good faith; (d) whether the beneficiary was bona fide or not should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the relationship with the debtor and beneficiary, the details of the act of disposal and the circumstances leading to such act; and (e) whether there are any special circumstances to doubt the terms and conditions of transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da206986, Nov. 28, 2013). According to each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 4 and 10 (including each number), the Defendant had been paying the instant real estate from before the instant sales contract to the end of 200,000 won under the name of the Defendant’s sales contract.

However, the following circumstances revealed from the facts of the above recognition and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the defendant appears to have a considerable close relationship, such as obtaining the consent to use the real estate of this case from the BB at the time of the new construction of the Jeju Jeju Jeju District Construction Project around 2010. Although each contract of the sales contract of this case stated that the registration of ownership transfer concerning the real estate of this case shall be completed at the same time as the payment of the balance is made, BB completed the registration of ownership transfer with regard to the whole real estate of this case without being paid at the purchase price from the defendant. However, it is difficult to regard the contract of this case as a normal transaction terms or transaction relationship. The contract of this case is written as the sales price of 80 million won (as of May 4, 2012) and 60 million won (as of July 5, 2012), it can not be viewed that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant paid at the price to B in good faith.

4. Methods of reinstatement;

The sales contract of this case shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the cancellation registration procedure of ownership transfer registration for the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 for the restoration to the original state, and the registration procedure for ownership transfer registration for the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 through No. 4 shall be implemented as requested by the plaintiff (Supreme Court Decision 99Da53704 delivered on February 25, 200).

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.