The agreement on division of the inherited property of this case constitutes a fraudulent act.

Since the agreement on the division of the inherited property of this case cannot be effective solely on the ground that the balance of the seized deposit account becomes zero won, the agreement on the division of the inherited property of this case constitutes a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act and Restoration to Original State)

2017 Ghana 107436 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Mazil

on October 31, 2018

November 2018

1. The agreement on the division of inherited property concluded on October 14, 2016 with respect to 1/10 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 list between the defendant and Han○○○ shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the restoration of real name with respect to the portion of 1/10 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to the plaintiff.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From April 1, 2003 to April 1, 2006, ○○ did not pay the respective national taxes (a total of KRW 104,963,300) indicated in the attached Table 2, for which a tax liability arises between April 1, 200 and April 1, 2006, and the total amount of the delinquent tax reaches KRW 172,979,690 as of April 24, 2017 (hereinafter “instant tax claim”).

나. 한○○의 모 망 최△△이 2016. 4. 1. 사망하자, 망인의 자녀들인 한○○, 피고, 한▲▲, 한■■, 한●● 등 공동상속인들(각 상속분 1/5)은 2016. 10. 14. 별지1 목록기재 각 부동산 중 망인 명의의 1/2 지분을 피고의 단독소유로 하고, 나머지 공동상속인들이 그 상속분에 관한 권리를 포기하는 내용으로 상속재산분할협의(이하 '이 사건상속재산분할협의'라 한다)를 하였다.

C. Korea-○○ was insolvent at the time of the instant agreement on the division of inherited property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, ○○○, who bears the instant tax liability against the Plaintiff, shall be deemed to have reduced the joint collateral against the general creditors by waiving his/her right to the inherited property while holding the agreement on the division of inherited property in insolvent. As such, the agreement on the division of inherited property in Han○○, supra, becomes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007) and is presumed to have the intention of ○○○○’s intent to commit fraud. Therefore, the portion relating to 1/5 of the portion regarding the portion regarding ○○○○○’s share of inherited property in the agreement on the division of inherited property in this case, should be revoked as a fraudulent act. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to restore the original state to Han○○○○, one-half of each real property listed in the separate sheet (1/10=2 x 1/5 of the shares in the deceased’s name).

B. Judgment on the defendant's defense

1) The defendant defenses that the statute of limitations has expired.

A) On the other hand, the facts that the time limit for payment of the tax claim of this case was from April 25, 2003 to May 1, 2006 as shown in the table No. 2 attached hereto are as seen earlier, and it is evident that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit of this case on April 24, 2017 after the five years have elapsed since the lawsuit of this case was filed. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 10 evidence, in relation to the tax claim of this case, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff seized the claim claim of this case against ○○○ National Bank with the claim claim of this case as of October 19 to June 17, 2009, which was before the expiration of the time limit for payment. Accordingly, the above statute of limitations is interrupted, and the defendant's defense is not justified.

B) As to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the above seizure became null and void as the balance of the deposit claim of Han○○○’s National Bank’s account becomes 0 won on June 17, 2009, and thus, the interruption of prescription becomes null and void. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that the tax claim of this case extinguished all by the lapse of five years after the lapse of five years from the tax claim of this case. However, it cannot be said that the interruption of prescription becomes null and void solely on the ground that the balance of the

C) In addition, the defendant asserts that since the above ○○ National Bank’s deposit claim is not more than 1.5 million won in balance, it constitutes a claim to prohibit seizure under Article 246(1)8 of the Civil Administrative Court Act and Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, its seizure is null and void as a violation of the Rules of the Administrative Court.

The Civil Execution Court, amended on April 5, 201, newly established a provision under Article 246(1)8 that sets the amount of deposits necessary for the debtor's maintenance of his/her livelihood for one month as a claim for prohibition of seizure. Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, amended on July 1, 2011, sets the amount of deposits not seized as of July 1, 201 as an individual deposit amount not exceeding 1.5 million won, and Article 1 and 2 of the Addenda of the same Act (amended on April 5, 201) provides that the above provision shall apply to the first request for seizure and cancellation case received after July 6, 201, which was the enforcement date of the same Act, and did not set deposit claims not exceed the balance of 1.5 million won as the claim for prohibition of seizure. Therefore, the defendant's assertion on this premise is without merit.

D) Furthermore, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the attachment is not effective or that the interruption of prescription is not effective on the grounds that the attachment was not notified to the ○○○ who is the delinquent taxpayer. However, even if the attachment was not notified to the delinquent taxpayer, it does not affect the validity of the attachment order, and as long as the obligation of the delinquent taxpayer against the third obligor was seized, the interruption of prescription becomes effective on the tax claim, which is an enforcement claim pursuant to Article 168 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act. Thus, the Defendant’s allegation appears

2) Claim for violation of the good faith principle

A) Although the Plaintiff expressed his public opinion that the taxation claim of this case does not exist through the certification, etc. prepared by the head of the Gun/Gu tax office, the Defendant asserts that the above claim exists again against the purport that it violates the good faith principle as an abuse of the right to collect national taxes. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the certification issued by the head of the Gun/Gu tax office to Han○○ on May 24, 2017, issued by the head of the Si/Gun/Gu tax office to Han○○ on the following facts: (a) comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8, it is difficult to acknowledge that the above certification stated that “the above contents may be changed later as of the date of issuance,” (b) the period of extinctive prescription of the tax claim of this case was terminated, but it is difficult to acknowledge that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the above claim of this case was valid by the bank after the completion of the extinctive prescription, and thus, it cannot be found that there was a legitimate evidence of the taxation claim of this case of this case.

B) The Defendant asserted that the amount of the Han○○ Deposit Account was very small amount compared to the Plaintiff’s tax claim amount at the time of the above seizure, and thereafter, despite the fact that the remaining amount was zero won due to the offset disposition by the card company, the Defendant’s assertion that maintaining the above seizure only without taking any additional measures for more than 12 years from the date of the above seizure and more than 8 years from the date when the Plaintiff became the 0 won of the above account amount, or that the interruption of the extinctive prescription against the instant tax claim is contrary to the good faith principle due to abuse of national tax collection right. However, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim or the interruption of extinctive prescription cannot be deemed to

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.