The selling of the forest land of this case to the defendant, which is his own property, in excess of the debt constitutes a fraudulent act.

The sale of the forest land of this case, which was in excess of the debt, to the defendant, constitutes a fraudulent act, since the sale of the forest land of this case, which is its own property, was made out of money which would have been easily consumed by selling other general creditors' property.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration of Fraudulent Act

2016 Ghana 217189 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

BB

December 31, 2016

January 25, 2017

1. The sales contract concluded on February 24, 2015 with respect to the shares of 2816/15901 among each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and the AA shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 98,560,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final to the day of full payment.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

The registration of ownership transfer was completed on February 24, 2015 with respect to the share of 2816/1590 of 1590, among the shares of 13-1 forest and field 15901 square meters inCC, and on the same day, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the same day on the same day as that of the Defendant, who is his/her father. On the same day, the transaction value was reported as KRW 98,560,000. In addition, the right to collateral security was established on the Defendant’s share of KRW 84,00,000 in advance of the maximum debt amount of HHHH Cooperative. On the same day, on November 26, 2015, the said land was divided into five land as indicated in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “the forest in this case where the said five shares were added to the shares of the pertinent land”). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for restitution and cancellation of the sale agreement against the Plaintiff on April 27, 2016.

At the time of the filing of the suit, the tax liability of the AA against the plaintiff is as listed in the table 1 below, and there was an additional obligation of KRW 50 million to the other interest-fighters.

In addition, around February 24, 2015, at the time of the sale of the instant forest, it is clear that the details of the active property of the Forestry Act around February 24, 2015, together with KRW 44,659,298, as follows, was in excess of the debt.

(1) 1/4 of the EE Ri 13-1 Forest land and 15901 square meters (3975.25 square meters): 200 million won.

5,8350,00 won [the refunded price shall be calculated on the basis of the proceeds from the sale previously disposed of. Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that the actual transaction price is three times the appraised value of 238,515,00 won, which was the appraised value of March 5, 2014, and reaches KRW 715,000,000 won. However, since the above appraised value or the proceeds from public sale reflects the transaction price or differs therefrom, the above argument by the defendant is difficult to believe, and there is no evidence to believe that it conforms to the defendant's above argument. The defendant's assertion against this part is rejected.)

② The forest of this case: KRW 183,010,779 (i.e., KRW 2550,835 million ± 3,975.25 square meters x 2,816 square meters x but less than KRW 2,816 square meters; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(3) 1/4 of the EE Ri 13-3 Forest land and 172 square meters (43 square meters): 2,794,553 won (the same shall apply to the foregoing in paragraph B).

④ Deposits: 503,966 won (=288,880 won + 60,147 won + 154,939 won)

(5) Total amount: 44,659,298 won

Since the sale of the forest land in this case, which was in excess of the debt, to the defendant, was realized in money, which would be easily consumed by selling real estate used as the property of other general creditors, this constitutes a fraudulent act that interferes with the collection of claims by the general creditors or infringes on their rights, which constitutes a fraudulent act. Therefore, the defendant, who purchased the forest land in this case from A, was aware of all such circumstances (i.e., the defendant was aware of the fact that he/she did not know of the fraudulent act of A at the time of the purchase, i.e., the defendant has the burden of proof for the defendant as to the "faith good faith".

However, the circumstances leading to the sale of the forest of this case, and the fact that the forest of this case acquired the ownership of the forest of this case

On the same day, the registration of ownership transfer is completed in the future of the defendant, the relation between the AA and the defendant, and even according to the defendant's argument, the defendant does not bear a real purchase price (i.e., the defendant lent 32.8 million won to YA, which was attached to YA, to the existing hospital expenses, etc., in lieu of the payment of the purchase price, and the remaining land price was paid 65.7.6 million won out of the loan 70 million won. In light of this, the defendant was not actually paid at the time of the sale. In light of this, the defendant purchased the forest land in this case at a price much much less than the objective market price (the purchase price of the defendant is less than 183.85%, which is the price of the forest in this case, and the actual transaction is much lower than the amount claimed by the defendant). The defendant did not reverse the defendant's presumption that "the defendant did not know about the tax in good faith at the time of 'the lack of evidence'.

The plaintiff's "compensation for value" that the plaintiff seeks is extremely reasonable to argue as follows, and there is no violation of the legal principles expressed by the Supreme Court, and thus, it is also invoked as it is, there is no violation of one rule.

The Plaintiff may recover the amount equivalent to KRW 250,8350,000 from the proceeds from the sale of the land set forth in paragraph (1).

However, even after the recovery of the above amount, the plaintiff still has a tax claim of at least KRW 500,000,00,000, and there is no problem in ordering the defendant to compensate for the value.

on the premise that the act of selling the forest of this case against the defendant of the AA constitutes a fraudulent act

The plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the payment of KRW 98,560,000, equivalent to the sale price of the forest of this case as the cancellation of a sales contract and compensation for value shall be accepted for all reasons.

The Defendant’s decision on December 15, 2016, the Court Decision 2016 GaFFFFF decided that the Plaintiff was seeking revocation of the fraudulent act against the Defendant, etc. on April 23, 2012 of the same real estate. However, even if, upon termination of the title trust with respect to the shares held in trust in the future in the forest, it was paid immediately to the Defendant on the ground of the termination of the title trust, instead of making the registration of ownership transfer as to the shares held in trust in the future in the forest, on the ground that the above shares did not belong to the Defendant’s liability property from the beginning because there was no timely completion of the registration of ownership transfer, and thus, it did not constitute the subject matter of fraudulent act, and thus, it does not constitute the subject matter of fraudulent act. Accordingly, the Court’s decision on February 24, 2015, which did not constitute the subject matter of this case’s net acquisition of the shares in this case.