(1) In case of seizure, extinctive prescription shall be interrupted, and the sale or purchase of real estate or the purchase of pre-contract shall constitute a fraudulent act.

It is difficult to find that the sole act of selling or buying real estate or entering into a pre-sale agreement is a fraudulent act and is not aware of a fraudulent act due to kinship.

Article 30 (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act) of the National Tax Collection Act

2018 Ghana 506793 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

KimA

October 12, 2018

November 16, 2018

1. (a) On February 26, 2016, all trade reservations and sales contracts entered into on February 26, 2016 with respect to shares in each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 through 3 shall be revoked.

B. The defendant against the non-party AB:

1) The procedure for each cancellation registration of the provisional registration of the claim for share transfer completed on February 29, 2016 as the receipt No. 9116 with respect to the share in each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 in the separate sheet No. 1 and the cancellation registration of the share transfer completed on January 2, 2018 as the receipt No. 126 of the same registry;

2) The registration procedure for cancellation of the provisional registration of the claim for share transfer completed on February 29, 2016 by the Suwon District Court CC registry office as of the share in the real property listed in the separate sheet 2 and the registration procedure for cancellation of share transfer registration completed on January 2, 2018 by the same registry office as of January 2, 2018;

3) The registration procedure for cancellation of the provisional registration of the claim for share transfer completed on February 29, 2016 as the receipt No. 9117, and the registration procedure for cancellation of share transfer registration completed on January 2, 2018 as the receipt No. 128 of the same registry office, with respect to the share in the real property listed in the separate sheet No. 3 as to

D. Each performance shall be made.

2. (a) On February 26, 2016, the Defendant and Nonparty B’s subscription to purchase and sale concluded on February 26, 2016 with respect to each real estate share listed in the separate sheet 4 and 5 shall be revoked.

B. The defendant against the non-party AB:

1) The procedure for registration cancellation of the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of shares, completed on February 29, 2016 under the receipt No. 9118, with respect to the share of the real property listed in the separate sheet No. 4,

2) The procedure for the cancellation of the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of shares, completed on February 29, 2016 under the receipt No. 9120, with respect to the share of the real estate in the attached list No. 5

D. Each performance shall be made.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. HB defaulted on national taxes (value-added tax and global income tax) of KRW 00,000,000 including the additional dues as of January 22, 2018, as listed in Table 1 below (hereinafter referred to as “instant taxation claim”).

B. On July 16, 2015, HB succeeded to each real estate share listed in the separate sheet 1 through 5 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "share of each real estate of this case", and completed each registration of transfer on February 4, 2016, after succeeding to each real estate share listed in the separate sheet 1 through 5 (hereinafter referred to as "share of each real estate of this case").

C. On February 26, 2016, HB entered into a sales contract with the Defendant, who is the spouse of HE, and (1) on February 26, 2016, entered into a provisional registration for each share transfer claim (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional registration of this case"), and completed the provisional registration of each share transfer claim (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional registration of this case") on February 29, 2016. On February 26, 2016, HB entered into a sales contract for the instant one or three shares of real estate (hereinafter referred to as the "sale contract of this case") and completed each share transfer registration (hereinafter referred to as the "share transfer registration of this case") described in Section 1(b) of the Disposition against the Defendant on January 2, 2018.

D. At the time of the conclusion of the instant promise to sell and purchase and the instant sales contract, HB held each of the instant real estate shares worth KRW 200,264,344 as active property, while in excess of its obligation, such as bearing the instant tax liability equivalent to KRW 322,448,90 in total with small property.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the request for market appraisal of appraiser KimG by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

(a) the existence of the secured claim;

1) Formation of preserved claims

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff had the instant tax claim against YB prior to the conclusion of the instant promise for sale and purchase and the sales contract, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the instant tax claim may be the preserved claim for the obligee’s right to revoke the instant promise for sale and purchase and the sales contract.

2) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A) Party’s assertion

The defendant asserts that there is no preserved claim since the extinctive prescription of this case 5 years has expired.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the statute of limitations has been interrupted since he seized the deposit claims and insurance claims of B based on the claim of this case.

B) Determination

The extinctive prescription of the instant taxation claim, which is a national tax claim, is five years (Article 27 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes), and the extinctive prescription of each taxation claim listed in Table 1 above shall run from each payment deadline.

In a case where the statute of limitations has been interrupted due to the reasons under each subparagraph of Article 28(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the statute of limitations that has lapsed until interruption does not include the period, but rather proceed anew from the time when the cause for interruption ceases to exist (Article 28(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 178(1) of the Civil Act). The effect of the interruption of prescription based on the “Attachment” among the causes interrupting the statute of limitations can be deemed to have ceased to exist when the seizure is rescinded or execution procedures are terminated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da239840, Apr.

According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 5 through 7 of the above Table, the purport of the whole pleadings by the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office may be acknowledged that the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office seizes the deposit claims against KBB on June 14, 201 based on each of the tax claims set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 9 of the above Table 1 among the instant tax claims and collects on or around November 18, 201, and releases the seizure on October 7, 2015. The Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office’s seizure of the claim for insurance money against damage insurance on or before Jun. 29, 2014 based on each of the tax claims set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 9, and 12 of the above Table 1 among the instant tax claims by the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office.

According to the above facts of recognition, at least 1 through 9, and 12, of the instant taxation claims, each of the taxation claims listed in paragraphs (1) through (9), and (2) of the above Table 1, was suspended by each seizure as of June 14, 201 and June 29, 2014, and the period of prescription was finally suspended, and the period of prescription shall begin to run anew from October 28, 2014, which was finally collected, and it is apparent that five years have not elapsed thereafter, the Defendant’s assertion that there is no preserved claim due to the extinguishment of the statute of limitations cannot be accepted.

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

1) In the obligee’s right of revocation, a fraudulent act means an act of disposal of property that makes it impossible to fully satisfy the obligee’s claims by reducing the obligor’s property so that the obligor’s joint security of claims is insufficient or by making the obligor lack of joint security already infinite, and an intentional intent is aware of the above facts.

Unless there are special circumstances, the act of a debtor in excess of his/her obligation by selling real estate, which is the only property of his/her own, and changing it into money easily for consumption, becomes a fraudulent act against a creditor. In such cases, the debtor's intent of deception is ratified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001). Furthermore, insofar as the debtor's intent of deception is recognized, the beneficiary is presumed to have been aware of the fact that his/her disposal would prejudice the creditor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da51908, May 2

2) The termination of the contract with the Defendant for the purchase and sale of each of the instant real estate shares, which is the sole property of the BB in excess of its obligation, is a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, who is the creditor of the B, and is presumed to be the debtor, YB, and the Defendant’s bad faith as the beneficiary.

C. Determination on the Defendant’s bona fide assertion

1) The defendant's assertion

The defendant thought that a construction-related business entity would develop a lot of development gains by using inherited land, and purchased the shares of BB.

The Defendant could not know that B was in excess of the debt by transferring the purchase price in cash to B passbook, and the Defendant did not have known that B was in excess of the debt. On the other hand, B was residing at KS, while Y was not frequently traveling at the time of Sejong, it could not be known of the mutual financial situation.

HB is the head of the household, and it is impossible to operate the business in the state of being treated by hospital from time to time due to disease, and the husband of HB actually operated the business in the name of HB, and it was impossible for HB to think that there was the amount in arrears of the value-added tax and the global income tax.

The most late time of the occurrence of the preserved claim is more than 6 years ago, 2012, but it is impossible for the defendant to know such obligation, and even B would be forgotten.

Even if HB had been in excess of its obligation due to the instant taxation claim, the Defendant could not be known, and thus, the Defendant’s intent cannot be recognized.

2) Determination

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary has the burden of proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da51908, May 23, 1997) that the beneficiary was unaware of the fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da51908, May 23, 1997). The statement in the evidence Nos. 1 through 7 is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant, as the beneficiary, was not aware of the fraudulent act, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus,

(d) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Therefore, the contract for the sale and purchase of this case entered into between the defendant and the NA should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement each procedure for the cancellation of provisional registration of this case and the transfer registration of equity to the NA.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.