A donation of his/her property to another person in excess of his/her obligation constitutes a fraudulent act, and there is no evidence to prove a donation of real estate based on a loan claim.

If a debtor donated his/her own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, it shall be deemed a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances, and since a delinquent taxpayer donated the instant real property to the defendant in excess of his/her obligation, it constitutes a fraudulent act, and it is presumed that the defendant'

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2015 Ghana 104285 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AA

May 25, 2016

June 22, 2016

1. On August 19, 2015, concluded on August 19, 2015 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and Nonparty B.

The contract of gift shall be revoked.

2. On August 19, 2015, the Defendant: (a) to Nonparty B, the Changwon District Court, Changwon District Court; and (b) to Nonparty B, on the said real estate.

The procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership completed by the receipt No. 48845 shall be implemented.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

가. 소외 이BB은 2006. 5. 15.부터 2015. 8. 31.까지 사이에 QQ시 QQQQ구 QQ읍 Q리 1127-18에서 'HH하이테크'라는 상호로 기계가공업을 영위하였다.

B. As of September 1, 2015, 201. (1) The date of establishment of the tax liability shall accrue to the year 201, December 31, 2011.

(2) O, O, O, O, O, additional dues, etc. for global income tax for the year 2012, effective December 31, 2012, (3) O, O, O, O, additional dues, etc. for global income tax for the year 2012, (3) the date on which the liability for tax payment is established belongs, such as O, O, O, O, O, additional dues, etc. for the global income tax for the year 2013, effective December 31, 2013, and additional dues thereon; (4)O, 201, 3O,O, additional dues, etc. for the employment income of 200, 2014, 3O, 200, 201, 3O, 200, 201, 201, 200, 2013, 201, 201, 2013, 201.

A total of OO, OO, or OO is in arrears.

C. This B: (a) on October 21, 2014, the real estate described in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”).

After purchasing OO, OO, or OO on December 9, 2014, the registration of ownership transfer was completed, and on the same day, the registration of the establishment of the mortgage was completed in the name of the non-party LL Bank Co., Ltd. with the maximum debt amount of O,OO, or OO.

D. AB donated the instant real property to the Defendant on August 19, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “B”).

No. 2 of this case's real estate in the name of the defendant on the same day.

Re-registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of ownership transfer of this case") was completed.

마. 2015. 8. 19. 당시 이BB의 LL은행 주식회사에 대한 피담보채무액은 OOO,OOO,OOO원이었고, 공동주택가격 기준시가 OO,OOO,OOO원인 이BB 소유의 QQ시 QQ구 QQ동 23-2 외 1필지 QQ아파트 2동 206호에는 2015. 8. 18. 소외 이MM 명의로 전세금 OO,OOO,OOO원의 전세권설정등기가 마쳐졌다. 따라서, 2015. 8. 19. 당시 이BB 명의의 재산 중 일반 채권자들의 공동담보에 공하여지는 책임재산은 OOO,OOO,OOO원(이 사건 부동산 OOO,OOO,OOO원 - OOO,OOO,OOO원 + QQ아파트 2동 206호OO,OOO,OOO원 - OO,OOO,OOO원) 뿐이었다.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry and pleading of Gap evidence 1 to 10 (including a provisional number)

The purport of the whole

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Special circumstances where the debtor donated his/her own property to another person under excess of his/her obligation

Unless otherwise, such an act is a fraudulent act (Supreme Court Decision 97 delivered on May 12, 1998).

C. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, and that B, who is well aware of such circumstances, had the intent to harm the plaintiff as the creditor, and that the defendant, the beneficiary, is presumed to have had the intention to harm the plaintiff as the creditor, unless there are special circumstances, since B donated the real estate of this case to the defendant in excess of debt.

B. As to this, the Defendant: (a) Nonparty, the head of thisB, was the largestD, from December 27, 2007 to April 2011.

9. Until now, this case’s real estate is a real estate trusted by the Defendant, and the registration of ownership transfer of this case’s real estate is completed following the termination of title trust, and thus, this case’s real estate is not constituted a fraudulent act, since this case’s real estate is a real estate trusted by the Defendant to B and completed the registration of ownership transfer of this case’s real estate upon the termination of title trust.

Therefore, the name of the property acquired in the sole name of the married couple, and that of the property acquired in the marital name of the married couple.

The other party's cooperation is presumed to have been made in the acquisition of the property's unique property, and there is cooperation in the acquisition of that property.

Although the presumption was not reversed solely on the fact that there was a mutual objection or a mutual objection, the presumption is not reversed;

any other party proves that it has been actually acquired at the cost of the property concerned,

The presumption is reversed, and the other party bearing the consideration is the actual owner of the convenience, who is the title holder

The title trustee of real estate is deemed to have held title trust. On the other hand, the title trustee of real estate has held title trust.

act of completing the registration of ownership transfer of trust real estate as a performance of the obligation to return within such period.

A fraudulent act as performance of an obligation does not constitute a fraudulent act (Supreme Court Decision 2006Da2006 Decided April 26, 2007).

79704 see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79704

In light of the above legal principles, the health class, Eul evidence 1-1 and 2 as to the instant case

According to the purport of the entire argument, Doddddy shall be from December 27, 2007 to April 9, 2011, 201.

Although it is true that a fraud remitted OO,OO, orOO to B, it is not sufficient to recognize that DoD lent OO,O, orOO to B only on the basis of the above fact of recognition, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and further, there is no evidence to prove that DoD transferred the loan to the defendant, or that the defendant trusted the real estate to B, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the gift contract of this case between the defendant and the B constitutes a fraudulent act.

In accordance with this cancellation, the defendant shall cancel the registration of transfer of ownership of this case to the BB.

Since the plaintiff is obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation registration, it is reasonable to accept the plaintiff's claim for reasons.

this decision is delivered with the judgment of the court.