The act of trading real estate in advance to a fraudulent person with knowledge that a delinquent taxpayer would be subject to high-amount tax is a fraudulent act.

The act of transferring the ownership of real estate in the form of sale to a fraud, which is the only property of the debtor in advance, with the knowledge that the tax would be levied on the delinquent taxpayer.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2016 Ghana 112672 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Park AA

November 16, 2016

November 30, 2016

1. As to the 000 square meters per O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong 000 square meters, the sales contract between Nonparty B and the Defendant on October 00, 2012 shall be revoked within the scope of KRW 000,000,000.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won with 5% interest per annum from the day after the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

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

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Nonparty B failed to pay taxes of KRW 00,000,000 to the Plaintiff during the course of running the real estate leasing business from October 0, 2002 to October 0, 2012. The above B sold the land of this case to the Defendant, which was the only property claim, with KRW 00,000,000,000 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on October 0, 2012. Nonparty B’s original registration of establishment of a mortgage over the land of this case was completed on October 0, 2008 by Nonparty 40,000,000,000,000 won, which was the first maximum debt amount of KRW 9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and there was no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 1,000,000,00 won,00 won.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. Even if the above sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act, the Plaintiff was aware of the establishment of a fraudulent act by conducting an investigation into the property of the BB during the first half of 2012. Thus, the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of one year from that time, and thus, is unlawful. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge such assertion. Accordingly, the aforementioned defense cannot be accepted.

B. In addition, the defendant asserts that the defendant lent a total of KRW 00 million from September 26, 2003 through April 6, 2004 to PCC, the husband of the above B, and acquired the land in this case as payment for the claim. The above B is merely KRW 00,000,000 in total for the plaintiff's taxation right at the time of selling the land in this case to the defendant, and the above BB did not know that there was insufficient financial resources at the time of selling the land in this case to the defendant, and the above BB did not know that there was a shortage of liability property by selling the land in this case to the defendant.

Therefore, according to the statements in subparagraphs 1 and 2-1 and 2 of subparagraph 1-2, the Defendant is deemed to have remitted the sum of KRW 00 million to Nonparty ECC, but there is no evidence to prove that it was a loan to the above BB or a loan amount was KRW 00 million, and as the Defendant asserted, it does not constitute a fraudulent act even if the Defendant lent KRW 00 million to the above BB and received payment in lieu of the instant land.

Meanwhile, this case’s land was transferred to the Defendant on October 0, 2012, before the date of the transfer of the land in this case, to the 00,000 O2, O20-0 above O2, and the Plaintiff was liable for transfer income tax under the Income Tax Act. It can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties, or that the Plaintiff was liable for transfer income tax under the overall purport of the statement and pleading No. 4,6, and if the real estate was transferred to the Defendant, the Defendant shall file a preliminary return and pay it within 2 months from the end of the month in which the transfer income tax base belongs (Article 105,106 of the Income Tax Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 11611 of Jan. 1, 2013), and the head of the tax office determined or revised the tax amount within a specific period or declared the tax payment notice differently from the fact, and thus, the Defendant’s claim that the transfer income tax liability belongs to the above 2000,014,0000.

C. In addition, the defendant defense that the above BB's disposal act at the time of acquiring the land of this case was unaware of the fact that it constitutes a fraudulent act, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and this is also without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, it is reasonable to cancel the sales contract of this case between BB and the defendant on October 00, 2012 within the scope of KRW 000,000,000 between the above BB and the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of KRW 00,000 and KRW 5% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the day when the judgment became final to the day when the payment is complete. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of