act of making a donation of property solely by a delinquent taxpayer constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor.

by donation of the sole property to a delinquent taxpayer, resulting in insolvent, which constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor due to the decrease in liability property.

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

2017 Ghana 11158 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Park AA

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

2017.08.08

1. The contract of donation concluded on August 9, 2013 with respect to 3/7 shares in the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and Nonparty ParkB shall be revoked.

2. On August 16, 2013, the Defendant shall comply with the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by OOOOOOOO of the District Court (OOOOOOO) with respect to 3/7 shares of the real estate listed in the attached list in the attached list of real estate.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claim;

Attached Form 3 is as shown in the "Cause of Claim".

annex 'The Grounds for Claim'

1. Relationship between the defendant and the non-party networks BB

National tax delinquent Non-Party BB (Death on December 23, 2016) is referred to the defendant (see, e.g., the card No. 1 and the family relation certificate No. 2).

2. Grounds for imposition of disposition against Nonparty 1’s gamblingB

The director of the tax office under the Plaintiff notified Nonparty B of the following table 1 to Nonparty B. However, Nonparty B’s failure to pay it and the amount of arrears including additional dues at KRW 63,309,710 (hereinafter “instant tax claim”) is 63,309,710, and Party B’s decision on the rectification of global income tax evidence No. 3, Party A’s decision on collection of evidence No. 4, Party A’s decision on collection, and Party A’s non-performance of evidence No. 5.

Table 1. Tax claim details (unit: source) against Nonparty 1’s deceased BB

2. Formation of preserved claims;

A. In principle, it is required that a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, at the time of such fraudulent act, there is a high probability that there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis for the establishment of the claim, and that the claim is established in the near future in the near future, and where the probability is realized in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da64038, Nov. 26, 2002).

B. This legal principle also applies to a tax claim. Therefore, even if there was no specific decision of correction, etc. at the time of a fraudulent act, there was a basic legal relationship as to the occurrence of a tax claim, and if a tax claim was established in detail through a series of procedures, such as the actual decision of correction, under a highly probable condition that a claim may be established in the near future, such a tax claim can be a preserved claim of the obligee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007).

C. Pursuant to Article 21(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, global income tax is abstract at the end of each taxable period, and Article 22(1) of the same Act provides that national taxes shall be determined according to the procedures under tax law.

D. According to the above relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against Nonparty ParkB is established on the date of abstract establishment of the above Table 1 and becomes specific on the date of each specific establishment of the tax liability. The Plaintiff’s taxation claim in this case was already specifically determined as of the date of fraudulent act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim in this case is entitled to be the preserved claim for the obligee’s right of revocation for any such contract as of August 09, 2013. Meanwhile, since the amount of the preserved claim is included in the additional charges accrued after the fraudulent act and the time of the closure of pleadings at the trial court (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007).

3. The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

A. On August 9, 2013, Non-Party B entered into a contract with the Defendant to donate the real estate indicated in the [Attachment] Real Estate Indication (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”) to his/her own owner, which is the sole property of Non-Party B, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership as stated in Paragraph 1(b) in the Defendant’s future claim on August 16, 2013 (see, e.g., the entire certificate of registration No. 6 and the family relation certificate No. 2).

B. The active property owned by Nonparty deceasedB at the time of the above donation contract is equivalent to KRW 21,00,000,000, compared to the reason for the gift property of this case in excess of the amount of KRW 44,513,550, even if only the tax liability against the Plaintiff was imposed on the Plaintiff (see, e.g., the document on the collection decision of KRW 4,513,50, and the current status of the material on the property with the loss in evidence No. 7, the document on the gift tax evidence No. 8, the certificate No. 9, the multi-family housing price inquiry, the aggregate building register of KRW 10, and the land cadastre No. 11).

C. If a debtor donates his/her own property to another person and causes a situation of exceeding his/her obligation, such act shall be deemed a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da57320, May 12, 1998; 2000Da7783, Oct. 25, 2002; 2005Da28686, May 21, 2007). If the debtor donates his/her own property to another person without any consideration, he/she would have been well aware that if he/she donates it to another person without any consideration, he/she would result in a situation of being unable to manage the passive property, such as taxes in arrears, etc., and thus, it would be presumed that the defendant's bad faith of the deceased ParkB, including the plaintiff, would result in harm to creditors, and thus, the defendant is presumed to have a duty to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership as to the real property in this case.

4. Conclusion

In light of such fact, this case’s gift contract constitutes a fraudulent act stipulated in Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act, and thus, sought revocation of the above gift contract, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the name of the defendant, which was made with respect to the real estate of this case, as the restoration to its original state. Thus, this lawsuit is filed in accordance with Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2. Grounds for recognition;

Judgment without Oral Pleading (Articles 208(3)1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act)