There is no evidence to prove that it is not a fraudulent act.

Real estate is not a fraudulent act by the Defendant, because the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the name of the contractor, and the Defendant, the lessee, merely restored the property right by changing the name of the contractor, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion.

2013 Ghana 102580 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

KoreaA

August 13, 2013

September 10, 2013

1. The lease transfer agreement concluded on July 13, 201 between the Defendant and Nonparty B (OOO-OO-OOOOOO, OO-dong 143 OCC apartment 301 Dong 503) is revoked.

2. The defendant gives notice that the lease transfer contract under Paragraph 1 was cancelled to Nonparty DoD (OOO-OOOOOOOO, OO-dong 890 EEEE apartment 102, 1302).

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

The cause of the instant claim is as shown in the attached Form, and it can be recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10.

On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that real estate subject to taxation is not the ownership of ParkBB but the ownership of the title trust, and thus, taxation imposed on ParkB is wrong, and that there is no tax claim on the Plaintiff ParkBB. In addition, the instant real estate was concluded by the Defendant by lending the name of ParkB, and that it is merely the fact that the Defendant, the lessee, changed the name of the contractor and restored the property right. There is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.