sale of the real estate to the relative and constitutes a fraudulent act under the burden of capital gains tax.

Unless there are special circumstances, a fraudulent act is deemed to be a fraudulent act and a bad faith of the debtor's will and beneficiary is presumed to be a fraudulent act, and thus, it should be revoked as a fraudulent act, unless there are special circumstances.

§ 406. Revocation of Civil Code

2014 Ghana 126712 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

No later than the closing date of pleadings, the capital gains tax (additional 18,228,300 won at the time this lawsuit is filed);

The amount in arrears is not paid 150,317,620 won.

C. BB and the Defendant: (a) on June 14, 2013, the indication of the attached real estate by BB to the Defendant each of the indications of the attached real estate.

The Defendant concluded a sales contract to sell real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) on June 25, 2013. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate on the grounds of the said sales contract and the drug.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-4, 6, 7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on fraudulent act

A. Formation of preserved claims

(1) The claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation is, in principle, a fraudulent act.

such act was committed before such act was committed, but such act had already been committed at that time.

There is a legal relationship which forms the basis for the establishment of a right and is based on such legal relationship in the near future.

(A) is highly probable to the effect that the claim is to be created and is actually established in the near future.

Where a claim has been created due to its reality, the claim shall also be subject to the creditor's right of revocation.

and such a legal principle shall also apply to a taxation claim.

As such, even if no specific disposition has yet to be taken at the time of the fraudulent act, tax shall be levied.

The occurrence of the basic legal relationship between the occurrence of claims has occurred and the claim will be established in the near future.

Tax claims are specifically established through a series of procedures in fact under the probability of the Do;

such a claim may become a preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the instant taxable real estate was transferred on May 30, 2013.

In light of the above, the duty to pay the transfer income tax of this case was established abstractly, which is then imposed.

It constitutes the basic legal relationship of the divided capital gains tax, and thereafter BB pays the capital gains tax.

the director of the regional tax office or the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment

It was highly probable that the transfer income tax was determined and notified, in fact,

Korea

BB by determining and notifying the transfer income tax amount of BB by the Director of the Tax Office under the COB

Inasmuch as a taxation claim against B has been specifically and practically determined, the Plaintiff’s BB

Tax claims may become preserved claims of obligee's right of revocation. In addition, capital gains tax claims may become creditors.

If the right to cancel is recognized as preserved bonds, the amount of the capital gains tax shall be reduced accordingly.

Since the above additional charges are also included from the time the argument of the fact-finding court is concluded (Supreme Court Decision 2001 March 23, 2001).

200Da37821, Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007, etc.) and the plaintiff Ga

150,317,620 won in total, including an amount in arrears, shall be subject to revocation of obligee's right to revoke the amount of preserved bond.

(b) the Corporation.

(b) insolvent of BB;

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 6, 9, 11, Eul 9-1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

Property with economic value as active property of BB at the time of the contract of this case

The real estate and the O-dong land (public land) to be seen below were due to the sales contract in this case.

due to the failure of BB to be in excess of its obligation. [This case’s real property]

Seoul Seongdong-gu O-O-O Do, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, whose name was registered in the name of the network DD, the spouse of BB

Aro 189.7 square meters, O-O large 142.2 square meters, O-O road 95.2 square meters, O-O road 307.3 square meters and BB, respectively.

A co-ownership of net CCC with respect to the above real property is included in active property, but is not 51.84/5192.

section BB(BB) due to the sales contract of this case

not affected. Moreover, the purchase price of the instant taxable real estate shall be determined by B until June 10, 2013.

BB Money immediately after deposit with the AFC Account (Account Number 737047-52-093985)

on June 10, 2013, after account transfer, the balance of the agricultural bank account of BB was less than KRW 6,016; and

BB did not pay the transfer income tax of this case until the date of closing argument of this case.

(c) Fraudulent act;

It is unique to sell real estate, which is the sole property of the debtor, and replace it with money easily consumed by the debtor.

Unless there are special circumstances, it becomes a fraudulent act, and the debtor's intent to commit a fraudulent act as a subjective requirement.

the security of the claim, which means the recognition of the deficiency in the joint security of the

or desire to commit an act under subsection (1) or (3) of this section, the sole property of the debtor

of the debtor's intent to cause damage to the debtor's will, if the debtor's intent to cause damage to the debtor's

C. The witness of Supreme Court Decision 99Da2515 delivered on April 9, 199, and Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41523 delivered on November 24, 2000

§ 6).

As seen earlier, BB is in excess of its obligation due to the instant sales contract

(2) Since such an act constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is the creditor.

of this case, the debtor BB has not been able to make a joint security due to the sales contract of this case.

satisfactory joint security may become insufficient to satisfy the claims of other creditors.

I seem to have known that there was no fact.

D. Bad faith presumption of the defendant

The defendant asserts to the effect that he is a bona fide beneficiary. However, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

(c) The basis is to:

The meaning of and criteria for determining the bad faith of the beneficiary: The intention of deception, which is the subjective requirement of the obligee's right of revocation;

beneficiary's bad faith is reduced by the debtor's act of disposal of the property, so the joint

any deficiency or lack of the joint security in the state of

Recognizing the fact that the claim of the holder is unable to be fully satisfied; and

have proved that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the juristic act because the beneficiary was presumed to have acted in bad faith.

A creditor may, unless he is unable to do so, cancel his juristic act and claim its recovery accordingly.

debtor's act of disposal of the property against a third party constitutes a fraudulent act, such fraudulent act

In recognizing that a beneficiary has acted in good faith, objective and acceptable evidence, etc.

the debtor's unilateral statement or the third party's abstract statement, etc.

It is difficult to readily conclude that a beneficiary was bona fide at the time of his/her fraudulent act, solely based on the basis therefor (Supreme Court).

See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006

as seen above, BB sold the instant real property to the Defendant at a reasonable price.

of this case, regardless of whether the Defendant paid the actual purchase price, the sales contract of this case

Therefore, the defendant's bad faith is presumed as beneficiary.

in order to recognize that the defendant, as a beneficiary at the time of fraudulent act, was bona fide, objective and consistent;

evidence, etc. submitted by the defendant and witness EE

testimony shall be made by the defendant and BB by entering into the contract of this case and the actual payment shall be made.

date of statement related to the fact that the payment was made or merely a connotation of the defendant's good faith;

However, it is not directly related to the defendant's good faith. Accordingly, at the time of fraudulent act based on this.

It is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was a bona fide good faith and otherwise objective and degree to recognize the good faith of the defendant.

There is no evidence to prove that the defendant was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act.

It is insufficient to determine.

The relationship between the defendant and the debtor BB(E, which was divorced from the defendant on June 30, 2011)

n) The fact that the defendant and the debtor BB continued to engage in monetary transactions, and the taxable real estate of this case

On the land, the Defendant owned the building on the land, and was on the land of this case’s taxable real estate

AA

The registration of the establishment of a large number of the establishment of the BB BB to the debtor was completed.

Even after the divorce with high-priced EE, the registration of establishment of such neighboring EE was completed, and the defendant BB

B When selling the taxable real property of this case, the above ground buildings owned by the Defendant are sold together with BB.

Do The fact, the transfer date of the instant taxable real estate ( May 30, 2013) and the date of the instant sales contract ( June 2013)

14.) The fact that the time is close to that time, and between BB and the Defendant before and after the date of the instant sales contract.

Considering the details of monetary transactions, only the evidence submitted by the Defendant and the witness EE testimony.

In other words, it is difficult to recognize the defendant's good faith.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 5, 7, 9-14, Eul 15, 16 (including each number)

3. Conclusion

A. On June 14, 2013, concluded between the Defendant and the debtor BB on each of the instant real estate

The sales contract shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant shall be restored to the original state to BB by the debtor

Each real estate of this case completed on June 25, 2013 by Seoul Eastern District Court No. 43465.

There is an obligation to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership.

B. Acknowledgement of the Plaintiff’s claim

April 27, 2015

May 18, 2015

1. The sales contract concluded on June 14, 2013 with respect to each real estate indicated in the separate sheet between the Defendant and BB is revoked. 2. The Defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of each transfer of ownership, which was completed by the Seoul Eastern District Court on June 25, 2013 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, to BB.

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

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 30, 2013, BB sold OO large 931 square meters (hereinafter “instant taxable real estate”) to OO and PP, and completed the registration of ownership transfer by the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-do, Daegu District Court on June 10, 2013.

B. On July 2, 2013, BB filed a voluntary report on capital gains tax following the transfer of the instant taxable real estate, but did not pay the capital gains tax. On October 9, 2013, BB issued a notice of notice by setting the due date for payment of capital gains tax of KRW 132,089,320 as of October 31, 2013. BB