The defendant's good faith is insufficient to recognize, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

The defendant's good faith is insufficient to recognize, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

2013 Ghana 2999 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

】 】

AA

aa A met the amount of approximately eight million won out of loans extended to bB near a half year to bB.

bb, in lieu of satisfaction of the obligation, the ownership of the real property in paragraphs 1 through 17 was not received.

The proposal that the transfer would take place is not only a response but also bb has been liable for a large amount of debt

Defendant Aaaa bbb by itself on the sole basis of the statement of No. 1

The fact that the sales contract was concluded on July 28, 201 and August 4, 2011 that constituted fraudulent act.

It is insufficient to recognize that the person was unaware, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

C. Defendant Hh’s good faith

Hh is merely a subsequent purchaser and could not know any excess of BB’s obligations, and Hhhhh's

It is essential that the jj, the husband of which is the representative director, has the business company and

land of paragraphs (1) through (12) in the mine in which such equipment is installed shall be sold from Defendant Aa to

purchase in 25,00,000 won and purchase from Defendant Aa with BB on July 28, 2011

he knows that he constitutes a fraudulent act, he or she has acquired each of the above lands from Defendant Aaa with knowledge that he or she

v. I asserts that it is v.

However, the purport of the whole of the pleadings is as follows: evidence No. 14-12 and evidence No. 15

on December 6, 2012, each of the real estates from Defendant Aa to 12 from Defendant Aa on December 6, 2012

At the time the registration of ownership transfer is completed, each of ee and fff held by the previous owner of the ownership.

1/3 Shares were seized as national taxes in arrears, and 1/3 others except the seized shares.

At the time of July 28, 2011, the sum of the market values is KRW 35,607,930.

The following circumstances, i.e., Defendant Hhh, by taking into account the overall purport of the pleading in the above facts

a) the sales of the immovable property from A to Twelve, however,

Note 25,000,000, the purchase price claimed by Defendant Hh was not set aside in this Court.

On the other hand, as of July 28, 201, the value of 1/3 shares in each of the immovables 1 or 12 as of July 28, 201

A’s total amount of KRW 35,607,930, which amounts to KRW 35,600 and which amounts to a sales contract between Defendant Hh and Defendant Aa.

jj, which is the husband of the defendant Hhh, appears to be in the same manner in December 6, 2012, and which is the husband of the defendant Hhh

In the case of land for the business of k Company in the name of hh, it shall be purchased in the name of k Company.

In light of the fact that there seems to be no reason to do so, each statement of Eul 1 to 7 alone is alone.

hh's good faith is insufficient to be recognized, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(d) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

BB and the sales contract of July 28, 201 and August 4, 2011 of bb and Defendant Aaa-2, 201 will be for fraudulent act.

as such, and to bb as reinstatement, 1 to 12 set forth in the Schedule 1 to 12.

on August 1, 2011 received on August 1, 201, No. 6638 of the Cheongju District Court

(1) The registration of transfer of ownership completed by the Corporation, Defendant Hhh, the same registry office, received on December 6, 2012, No. 10128

The cancellation registration procedure for the transfer of ownership completed, 2. The defendant Aa in the separate sheet 13 to 13.

17 Action completed on August 11, 201 by the Cheongju District Court Mayang District Court Mayang District Court 7010

There is a duty to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of right transfer.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is with merit, each state shall be accepted.

shall be decided as above in writing.

October 29, 2014

November 26, 2014

1. As to real estate listed in the annex No. 1 to 12:

A. Revocation of the sales contract concluded on July 28, 201 between Defendant Aa and BB, and

(b) bb:

1) Defendant Aa: (a) the transfer of ownership that was completed under the receipt of No. 6638 of August 1, 201;

2) Defendant Hh will implement each procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on December 6, 2012 by the same registry office as the receipt No. 10128 of the same registry office.

2. As to real property listed in the annex No. 13 to 17:

A. The sales contract on August 4, 201 between Defendant Aa and BB is revoked.

B. Defendant Aa will implement the procedure for registration cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed under the receipt No. 7010 on August 11, 201 with the Cheongju District Court single registry office to B.B.

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

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Basic facts

A. Formation of preserved claims

1) On September 30, 201, the Cc head of the tax office notified BB of KRW 27,170,410 of the global income tax for 209; KRW 15,421,370 of the global income tax for 201; KRW 122,765,380 of the capital gains tax for 201 as the due date for payment; and KRW 146,265,640 of the capital gains tax for 201 as of September 30, 2011; but Bb did not pay KRW 146,265,640 of the tax as of July 11, 2013.

(b) The disposal of BB’s disposal;

1) The real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 17 (hereinafter referred to as the “real estate”) held dd, e, e, and fff each share of 1/3 of d, e, and fff. However, on August 5, 1996, the Plaintiff seized the said share as national taxes in arrears with respect to E, e, and ff. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate on August 27, 1996 by ggg, and bbb completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 19, 201.

2) BB completed each registration of transfer of ownership on August 4, 201 with respect to the real estate on July 28, 201 with respect to Defendant Aa, from August 1, 201 to December 12, 201, for sale and purchase on August 11, 201, for each of the real estate on August 13 through 17, 201. Defendant Aa completed the registration of transfer of ownership on December 6, 201 with respect to the real estate on December 1 through 12 to Defendant Hh on December 5, 2012.

3) However, on July 23, 2013, the public auction procedure following the above seizure was in progress, and on July 23, 2013, the share of 1/3 in e, fff is put up for public auction. The share of 1/3 in 10 to 12 is put up for public auction, and 2/3 shares in ggg, bbb, aa, and hhh are cancelled, and 1/3 of the transfer registration of ownership in 10 to 12 were cancelled.

(c) The self-sufficiency status of BB;

1) As of July 28, 2011, where BB sold real estate under paragraphs (1) through (12) to Defendant Aa and August 4, 2011, the active property of BB as of August 4, 2011, sold real estate under Articles 1 through 17 and 18 through 36, each of the real estate listed in the table Nos. 18 through 2. However, each market value and its aggregate are as stated in the column for market value listed in the table No. 2.

2) As of July 28, 201 and August 4, 2011, BB had the obligation of loans of KRW 200,000,00 and KRW 60,045,878 to an enterprise bank, in addition to the national tax obligation against the Plaintiff, in addition to the Plaintiff’s national tax obligation. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute over the Plaintiff’s obligation of loans of KRW 200,00,00,00, and KRW 60,045,878 is not in dispute, evidence No. 1-1 through 17, evidence No. 7-7, evidence No. 7-1 through 35, evidence No. 14-1 through 12, and evidence No. 18-1 through 6 of this Court, the result of the entrustment of

2. Determination

(a) The establishment of speculative acts and the intention to injure them;

According to the above facts, bB’s active property as of July 28, 201 and August 4, 2011, 201, sold real property of 13 through 17, which was sold by bB to Defendant Aa, was KRW 296,781,248, while bB had the obligation to pay a loan to a corporate bank (=260,045,878 won + KRW 60,000 + KRW 60,000 + KRW 878). At that time, bB had the obligation to pay a tax to the Plaintiff imposed on bB, who was the due date, was in a state of excess of 165,357,160, since bB had the obligation to pay a tax to the Plaintiff at KRW 165,357,160.

The act of a debtor's act of not being able to fully satisfy the creditor's claims by selling his property to a certain creditor or deepening the status of excess of the debt constitutes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, and thus, the sales contract between BB and Defendant Aa on July 28, 201 and August 4, 201 between BB and Defendant Aaa, which were in excess of the debt, is a fraudulent act, and BB was well aware of the debtor's debt status around that time, and thus, BB's intent to thb is also inferred.

(b) the good faith of Defendant Aa;