The act of a delinquent taxpayer to transfer his claim to the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act with knowledge that it would prejudice the plaintiff (state).

(Judgment without Oral Proceedings) Since the act of a delinquent taxpayer to transfer his/her claim to the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act committed with the knowledge that it would prejudice the plaintiff (state) and the defendant is presumed to have been aware of such fact, the contract to transfer the claim shall be cancelled and the

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Gohap1521 Revocation of fraudulent act

Korea

XX

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

April 26, 2012

1. Revocation of an assignment contract concluded on September 21, 201 with respect to the claims listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and KimA (*************).

2. The defendant has given notice to ChoB (**************) that the assignment of claims as described in paragraph (1) has been cancelled.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claim;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

Grounds of Claim

1. Factual basis

A. The existence of the Plaintiff’s tax claim against Nonparty KimA

The plaintiff currently has a taxation claim of 000 won in total, such as transfer income tax, to the non-party delinquent KimA (hereinafter referred to as "non-party delinquent"), as shown in the table 1 below, and the delinquent taxpayer does not voluntarily pay it, which is added to the increased monthly penalty.

(b) Taxation details;

The director of the regional tax office, etc. under the Plaintiff imposed national taxes under the attached Table 1 on the delinquent taxpayers for the following reasons, and the reasons for taxation are as follows:

(1) Value-added tax: A value-added tax is levied in 00 won because it was not paid even though the scheduled notice of value-added tax was given for two years in 2008 (from July 1, 2007 to September 30, 2007).

(2) Value-added tax: The value-added tax is levied in 00 won because it was not paid after filing the final tax return for the second term portion (from July 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007) in 208.

(3) Value-added tax: A value-added tax is levied in 00 won because it was not paid even though the scheduled notice of value-added tax was given for January 1, 2009 (from January 1, 2007 to March 31, 2007)

(4) Value-added tax: A value-added tax is levied in 00 won because it was not paid even though the scheduled notice of value-added tax was given for two years in 2009 (from July 1, 2007 to September 30, 2007).

(5) Value-added tax: A secondary tax liability forO (107-81-0000) is levied in KRW 000 as it was not paid after the final return of value-added tax for the second period of 2008.

(6) Value-added tax: A secondary taxpayer ofO (O (107-81-000) is taxed as the non-deductible tax amount for the first term in 2009, and 000 won is taxed.

(7) Global income tax: The global income tax for the year 2008 was assessed in 000 won because it was not paid although the scheduled global income tax was notified.

(8) Global income tax: A tax amount of 000 won is levied on the global income tax for the year 2008 because it was not paid even though the global income

(9) Transfer income tax: In 2008, 000 won is taxed since real estate is transferred in East capital XX 413-2 and three parcels, and is not scheduled.

(10) Transfer income tax: 00 won is levied on the real estate that was transferred in the year 2010 by failing to make a preliminary return of transfer income tax after transferring the real estate in the Yeongdeungpo-dong 54-53

(11) Transfer income tax: A 65-36 real estate in Seoul among Seoul is transferred in 2009 and the transfer income tax is taxed in 000 won as the transfer income tax is not scheduled.

(c) The right to be preserved for revocation of fraudulent act;

Since the tax claims listed in subparagraph 1-A (A) against the Plaintiff’s delinquent taxpayer were in arrears before September 21, 201, which is the date of the transfer of claims listed in the attached list, the total amount of the national taxes in this case may be the preserved right of the lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act in this case (Evidence 1-3 (Evidence 1-A-3).

2. Fraudulent act;

In Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, a real estate owned by a delinquent taxpayer on July 07, 2008, at XX 413-6, Nonparty B received from Nonparty KimCC (205-31-00000) the delinquent taxpayer's son KimCC and has been running a business until the date of filing the lawsuit, and Nonparty B borrowed KRW 000 of the loan claim amount of this case from the delinquent taxpayer on October 07, 2008 (Evidence 2).

After that, the delinquent taxpayer, upon the unpaid payment of capital gains tax, etc., prepares a claim support contract that transfers the loan claims in the attached Form list to the defendant who is the spouse of the non-party KimCC. On September 21, 201, the notice of the transfer of the claim to the effect that "the amount of 000 won of the loan claims that the non-party KimCC should pay to the KimA" was sent to 000 won by content certification at the post office of the Seoul BB Dong, and the protocolB in receipt of the notice of the transfer of the claim is expected to pay to the defendant the amount of the claim collection on the attached Form list.

Accordingly, a creditor has the honor to bring about a situation in which a claim cannot be satisfied (Evidence A(3)).

3. Reduction and excess of liability assets;

In order to avoid the disposition on default, the delinquent taxpayer transferred the bonds listed in the attached list to reduce the total amount of 00 won at the time of the fraudulent act.

The active property of the delinquent taxpayer at the time of the fraudulent act in this case is KRW 000 (35,500,000) of the O's shares (35,500) and the delinquent property is 000 won, which is the preserved claim in this case, as shown in the list of the data on the status of the delinquent taxpayer's property, etc. (Evidence A No. 4). The delinquent taxpayer has suffered a debt in excess of KRW 000 due to the fraudulent act.

4. The intention of an injury.

After the occurrence of default, a delinquent taxpayer transferred a loan claim stated in the attached list, which is a primary property, to the Defendant, who is the wife of GinCC, on September 21, 201, in order to avoid the disposition on default, and the delinquent taxpayer at the time of transfer was aware that the legal act of the transfer of a claim was harmful to the Plaintiff, which is a tax claim.

In addition, the act of transferring a claim on the attached list, which is one property owned by the delinquent taxpayer, to the defendant who has a special relationship with the delinquent taxpayer when national taxes have already been in arrears, constitutes a legal act with the intent of undermining the creditor of national tax, who is the plaintiff, by entering into a false claim acquisition agreement with the defendant and transferring the claim in the attached list.

5. Bad faith of the defendant

1) If the intention of the defaulted taxpayer is recognized as above, the defendant's bad faith is presumed.

Supreme Court Decision 97Da6711 Decided February 13, 1998

2) As Defendant WhiteD is the Republic of Korea of a delinquent taxpayer, it is assumed that this legal act was a fraudulent act at the time it was transferred by the delinquent taxpayer, and that the delinquent taxpayer’s will to understand the fact that it was a fraudulent act. (Evidence A 5)

6. Period of exclusion;

On October 06, 201, the delinquent taxpayer came to know of the fact that he transferred his claim to the defendant listed in the attached list to the defendant in the delinquent tracking investigation, and the date of the speculative act in this case was September 21, 201, and the date when he became aware of the cause of revocation of the fraudulent act was October 6, 201, and therefore, the lawsuit of revocation of the fraudulent act in this case was filed within five years from the date of the lawsuit, and within one year from the date when he became aware of the cause of revocation of the fraudulent act, and thus, the limitation period was not over.

7. Lack;

In light of the above facts, it is presumed that the act of a delinquent taxpayer to transfer his claim to the defendant listed in the attached list constitutes a fraudulent act committed with the knowledge that it would prejudice the plaintiff, and the defendant also was aware of such fact. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to revoke the assignment contract and recover the amount equivalent to the amount in arrears as claimed in the claim.