The transfer registration of ownership of real estate held in title trust does not constitute a fraudulent act.

The registration of transfer of ownership of the right to inheritance at the time of inheritance of the property acquired through joint efforts during marriage does not constitute a fraudulent act.

2016 Ghana 141135 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

BB

November 9, 2017

January 18, 2018

1. The agreement on division of inherited property concluded on October 15, 2014 with respect to 2/14 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and AA shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall implement AA with respect to the share of 2/14 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer consisting of the recovery of the authentic title.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. Of the litigation costs, 50% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The agreement on the division of inherited property concluded on October 15, 2014 with respect to 2/7 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "building of this case") between the defendant and AA shall be revoked. The defendant will implement to AA procedures for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the restoration of real name with respect to 2/7 shares of the building of this case.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 12, 1988, CCC completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name with respect to the instant building.

B. On April 2, 2014, the CCC died, and the Defendant, the wife, inherited his property in proportion to 3/7 shares, ASEAN, and DD respective 2/7 shares. On October 15, 2014, AA and DD renounced their inheritance shares in respect of the instant building, and made an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”) between the Defendant and the Defendant on the division of inherited property (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”). Accordingly, the Defendant completed the registration of the transfer of ownership in its name as to the instant building on grounds of inheritance by division.

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on June 2014, the head of the tax office affiliated with the Defendant imposed a disposition of imposition of xx, xx, and xxx on AA, which belongs to the year 201, on the grounds that: (a) on November 22, 2016, a request for correction was filed with the head of the tax office of ○○; (b) on January 25, 2017, the request was rejected by the head of the tax office of ○; (c) filed a request for correction with the Tax Tribunal on February 21, 2017. The Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that the head of the tax office of ○○ on August 21, 2017 that the disposition of refusal to rectify the 201 global income taxx, xx, and xxxx, which was made to AA on January 25, 2017.

D. Since the date on which AA’s liability for global income tax for 201 was established, the details of arrears until now are as follows:

E. The active property of AA at the time of the instant consultation is the reason for inheritance shares in respect of the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

1) Cancellation of the instant consultation

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against AA was established as above and the due date arrives, and AA subsequently completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant solely for the instant building by waiving the inheritance shares in the instant building through the instant consultation. As seen above, AA’s act of abandoning the inheritance shares in the instant building, which is the only property of the Plaintiff, while failing to pay taxes to the Plaintiff, constitutes a fraudulent act by causing or deepening the shortage of joint security against the general creditors, including the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s malicious intent is presumed to be a beneficiary, barring any special circumstance, and thus, the instant agreement between the Defendant and AA should be revoked.

2) Scope of restitution

A) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant building is solely owned by the CCC, and that the Defendant (3/7 shares), AAA (2/7 shares), and DD (2/7 shares) were inherited all of the instant building, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the restoration of genuine registration name with respect to the shares of 2/7 shares in the instant building. On this premise, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant building is owned by joint efforts during marriage, and that it is owned by maintenance, etc. thereafter, the Defendant cannot be regarded as the beneficiary, and that the instant building is owned by itself and CCC.

B) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and videos in Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 17 through 30, the building of this case can be acknowledged as the facts that the CCC and the defendant jointly formed or acquired the book (aa) from 1976 after they were married in 1969, and from 1980, the building of this case is co-ownership of the CCC and the defendant, and each share is 1/2 (the defendant seems to have held title trust with CCC). Since the part subject to inheritance among the building of this case is 1/2 shares other than the defendant's share, AA and DD inherited shares 2/14(2/14(2/7x1/2) from each of the building of this case, and the part that AAA is to recover to the defendant following the cancellation of the consultation of this case is limited to the shares to be restored to 2/14(2)/14(2) of inheritance.

C) The instant consultation concluded on October 15, 2014 with respect to 2/14 of the instant building between the Defendant and AA shall be revoked. Moreover, as AA succeeded to the instant building’s share pursuant to the law, it is possible to seek a registration of transfer against the Defendant instead of seeking implementation of the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the registration of transfer in the name of the Defendant to the said share. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership for 2/14 of the instant building on the ground of the restoration of the real name with respect to 2/14 of the instant building. The Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit within the said scope, and the

B. Determination on the Defendant’s bona fide assertion

1) The assertion

AA and DD consulted on the instant case so that the Defendant may use the proceeds from the instant building to meet the living cost. At the time of the consultation, the Defendant was unaware of the tax delinquency of the AA at the time of the consultation on the instant case, and the AA also judged that the tax delinquency of the AA was erroneous and that the said global income tax imposition disposition was erroneous. Accordingly, the consultation on the instant case was conducted in a state where there was no perception that it was a fraudulent act. The Defendant is bona fide

2) Determination

It is not sufficient to recognize the evidence of Nos. 9 through 16 only with the statement of Nos. 9 through 16, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the defendant's good faith. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit.