act of transferring real estate which is the only property of a delinquent taxpayer to a private village constitutes a fraudulent act.

Since the real estate of this case, which is the only property of the debtor in arrears, was sold to the defendant, who is the only property of the debtor in arrears, it constitutes a fraudulent act by reducing the general creditor's liability property against the debtor in arrears, and it is presumed that the debtor in arrears and the defendant's will be deceased in light of the transaction circumstances and the relationship between the defendant

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

2014 Ghana 214690 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

OO

August 14, 2014

August 28, 2014

1. The sales contract concluded on July 24, 2013 between the defendant and AA with respect to each building listed in the separate sheet is revoked.

2. The Defendant shall comply with the procedures for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 38575 of the receipt of July 24, 2013 with respect to each building listed in the separate sheet to AA.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Nonparty AA, the Defendant’s death village, was the same as Nonparty AA, the Defendant’s place of business from October 10, 2005 to June 30, 2013, using each building listed in the separate sheet as its place of business, and “BB industry” operated the intermediate waste treatment industry.

B. AA entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant on July 24, 2013 with respect to each building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on July 26, 2013 with respect to each of the above buildings pursuant to Article 38575 of the OO District Court’s OO registry receipt of OO registry as to each of the above buildings. At the time of the above sales contract, AA had no particular property other than the above buildings.

C. Meanwhile, each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet is newly constructed by AA and completed registration of initial ownership on December 14, 2010, and the co-ownership of the Defendant and Nonparty 2 at the same time as the OO-type O-type 71 to 838 square meters, which is the relevant site, is the joint ownership of the Defendant and Nonparty 2 at the same time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 to 8, Eul evidence No. 3

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts of recognition, it is presumed that AA sells each building described in the separate sheet, which appears to be the sole property when it bears tax liability against the Plaintiff, to the Defendant, as a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, who is the taxation right holder, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da2606, 2613, May 9, 197), and the Defendant’s bad faith as the beneficiary is presumed.

B. Therefore, the sales contract of this case shall be revoked as a piracy, and the restoration to its original state, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership for each building listed in the separate sheet on the grounds of the above sale as to each building listed in the separate sheet.

3. Determination as to the defendant's bona fide defense

A. The Defendant provided the land to AA for free to use the site for each building listed in the separate sheet to operate a waste disposal business, and agreed to purchase each of the above buildings if AAA was not in operation. On around spring around 2013, as the situation where AA was unable to continue business operation due to inconvenience in moving to the area, the Defendant solicited the Defendant to purchase each of the above buildings. As such, the Defendant entered into the instant sales contract with the amount of KRW 25 million. As such, the Defendant did not know that at the time of the instant sales contract, AA was liable for tax liability to the Plaintiff or that there was no knowledge of the circumstances that the property was the reason for each of the above buildings. Thus, the Defendant asserted that the instant sales was unaware of whether the Plaintiff was a fraudulent act.

B. Therefore, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the Defendant’s transfer of KRW 25 million, which appears to be the purchase price of the instant sales contract, from the Defendant’s deposit account to the AA’s deposit account on August 5, 2013, is recognized, but the Defendant is a relatively easily understandable position as the Plaintiff’s private village of AA concerning the business operation or financial status of the AA; even if considering the fact that the site of each building was owned by the Defendant, the purchase price of KRW 25 million in the separate sheet appears to be remarkably lower than the market price; and there is no evidence to support the circumstances as to the developments leading up to the conclusion of the instant sales contract among the Defendant’s assertion, based on the circumstance that the purchase price equivalent to the sales price under the sales contract was actually paid as above, it is difficult to find that the Defendant was unaware of such fraudulent act at the time of the instant sales; and there is no other evidence to support the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.