giving notice of national tax after the tax investigation and giving notice to the disposal of real property constitutes a fraudulent act.

If the Nonparty predicted that national taxes will be notified in the near future after undergoing a tax investigation by the Plaintiff, and that his own real estate was in excess of his liability by donation to the Defendant (foreign wife), this constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, constitutes a fraudulent act, and the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate should be cancelled.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Ghana 210298 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

XX

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

October 23, 2012

1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. Revocation of a gift agreement concluded on September 7, 201 between the Defendant and leapA.

B. The Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed with No. 12537, Sept. 27, 2011, such as Youngju District Court Young-dong Branch, etc., for the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

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

Grounds of Claim

1. The relationship between the defendant and the non-party A

The defendant is the wife of the non-party delinquent taxpayer of the national tax (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party delinquent taxpayer"). (A certificate No. 1) and 2. The establishment of a taxation claim, which is a preserved bond,

A. From March 1, 1983 to October 31, 201, the Nonparty operated the scrap metal and non-ferrous wholesale business under the trade name of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City Council from 3873 to 3873. (B) The Plaintiff’s head of Busan District Tax Office, with respect to the above business, issued an integrated personal investigation (tax offense investigation) with the Nonparty from July 12, 201 to 31, 201, after deducting the processed purchase tax invoice at the time of filing a return of value-added tax at the end of 207 to 3873, and confirmed that the Plaintiff’s aggregate of the value-added tax and the global income tax were evaded by including the global income tax invoice at the time of filing a return of the value-added tax at the end of 207 to 2010 (the Plaintiff’s additional tax invoice at the end of 13,000,000 won to 3,010,000 won of the global income tax office.

(The following table omitted):

3. Fraudulent act;

"I, after undergoing a tax investigation from July 12, 201 to August 31, 2011, do, under the foreseeable that national taxes will be notified in the near future, I, as stated in the attached list of the complaint (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate in this case"), have cancelled the registration of transfer of ownership with the receipt number No. 12537 on September 27, 201 due to the gift contract on September 7, 201, to the defendant, who is the wife, as the receipt number No. 12537 on the machinery, such as Youngju District Court, Youngju District Court, Young-dong Branch, etc. (a copy of the attached list of four real estate (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate in this case"), and 4. Reduction of responsible property.

The instant real estate is the entire land and the officially assessed individual land price, and the following may be assessed as KRW 000 won as of September 7, 201, as shown in Table 2. Therefore, the Nonparty reduced the liability property of KRW 000 as the donation of the instant real estate.

5. Excess of debts.

(a) Active property;

“At the time of donation of the instant real estate on September 7, 201, the Nonparty’s active property was seven real estate as shown in the Nonparty’s property status attached Table 2, as follows: The entire land is calculated as the publicly assessed individual land price, and the sum of the Nonparty’s active property at the time of September 7, 201 is KRW 000 (the instant real estate).

Gap evidence Nos. 5-7 5 through 7 f-7 f-2

The evidence No. 6 No. 6, "data No. 6," "data No. 1," and "No. 2, a non-party leA's property status."

(The following table omitted):

B. Petty property

The Non-Party’s passive property at the time of donation of the instant real estate on September 7, 201 was highly probable that the Non-Party’s claim for the preservation of the fraudulent act of this case would be 00 won (i.e., evidence No. 7) of the Busan Metropolitan City Gangseo-gu and 4441 real estate, and that of Busan Bank’s claim against Busan Bank (i.e., evidence No. 7), from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2010, after deducting the processed purchase tax invoice without real transaction and deducting the processing purchase tax invoice from the value added tax and global income tax were assessed, and there was a high probability that taxes would be imposed in the near future. Accordingly, the Non-Party’s claim for the preservation of real estate of this case would be 00 won (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da27905, Nov. 28, 199) and the Non-Party’s total amount of the non-Party’s claim for global income tax claim of this case 30000Da.

6. The defendant's bad faith of light of the deceased's will;

In addition to the non-party made a false tax return for the purpose of evading taxes, and after undergoing a tax investigation from July 12, 201 to August 31, 201, the non-party was aware that at the time of transferring the real estate of this case having property value to the defendant for the reason of donation, the non-party would have been able to know that at the time of transferring the ownership for the reason of donation to the defendant, the non-party would have been able to know that the non-party was able to know that the donation was fraudulent, and that the defendant, as the wife of the non-party, was aware of the intention of the non-party

7. The date on which he becomes aware of a fraudulent act;

"The director of the Busan District Tax Office issued the same copy of the registry on October 6, 201 to seize the national tax before the determination of national tax, and it became aware of the fraudulent act of this case." (Evidence A No. 8)", and lack of 8.8.

In light of the above facts, the act of the non-party who completed the registration of ownership transfer to the defendant on the instant real estate on the grounds of donation constitutes a fraudulent act, which is an act of knowing that it would prejudice the plaintiff, who is the creditor, by evading the non-party's tax liability. Therefore, the plaintiff had caused the plaintiff to file this lawsuit, such as the purport of the claim, in accordance with Article 406 of the Civil Act and