The fact that the beneficiary was unaware of the fraudulent act has the burden of proof for the beneficiary.

The fact that the beneficiary was unaware of the fraudulent act has the burden of proof to the beneficiary, and in recognizing that the beneficiary was bona fide, objective and acceptable evidence should be supported, and it should not be concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide with the unilateral statement of the debtor or a statement that is merely a third party's prosecution.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

201Aband8724 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AAAAA as an incorporated foundation

October 1, 2013

October 24, 2013

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

A. Revocation of a gift agreement concluded on January 0, 201 between the Defendant and BB

B. The Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on January 0, 201 by ○○ District Court ○○○○ registry office, which was completed on January 0, 2011.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. BB and the defendant's relation

The defendant is a foundation that has the power of representation when the CCC, a type of BB, serves as a director.

B. The Plaintiff’s taxation claim against BB

1) The director of the regional tax office of the Plaintiff-affiliated regional tax office conducted a tax investigation on BB from October 0, 201 to March 0, 2011 (hereinafter “instant tax investigation”).

2) On April 0, 201, the head of the ○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control issued a global income tax disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on BB on the following grounds: (a) on April 0, 201, the head of the ○○ Tax Office imposed a global income tax disposition on BB; and (b) held a national tax claim against BB (hereinafter “instant national tax claim”).

Year

Global Income Tax

Date of establishment of tax liability;

Deadline for payment

206

000 won

December 31, 2006

April 25, 2011

2007

000 won

December 31, 2007

April 25, 2011

208

000 won

December 31, 2008

April 25, 2011

209

000 won

December 31, 2009

April 25, 2011

2010

000 won

December 31, 2010

April 25, 2011

Total

000 won

3) BB filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition by Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap0000 on March 0, 2012. On August 0, 2013, the said court rendered a judgment that revoked part of the instant disposition with the following content: (a) the Seoul High Court was currently holding the appeal as Seoul High Court 2013Nu000.

Year

Imposition Disposition

Amount of award

Amount revoked

206

000 won

000 won

000 won

2007

000 won

000 won

000 won

208

000 won

000 won

000 won

209

000 won

000 won

000 won

2010

000 won

000 won

000 won

Total

000 won

000 won

000 won

(c) Disposition of property by BB;

BB, on January 0, 201, the tax investigation period of the instant case, the Defendant made a donation (hereinafter referred to as “instant donation contract”) of the real estate listed in the attached list owned by BB (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”) to the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant on January 20, 201 by the ○○ District Court ○○○○ registry Office 00.

(d) exceeding BB’s obligations;

At the time of the gift contract of this case, BB had been in excess of obligations as follows:

[Potable Property: Total amount of the instant real estate 000 won

(1) The real estate of this case 000 won + the real estate of this case 2 000 won

Golf membership 000 won

(0000000, 000 ○○CC membership number e0000)

Total financial property 000 won

Total: 000 won (000 won +0000 won +0000 won)

Small property: Total amount of national tax claim of this case 000 won

(based on the quoted amount of 2012Guhap0000 of the Seoul Administrative Court's disposition of this case

Total: 000 won)

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry (including paper numbers) of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;

A. Formation of preserved claims

According to the above facts of recognition, BB is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff national taxes of KRW 000 (based on the amount cited in the first instance judgment) due to the instant disposition, and it can be recognized that the Plaintiff’s national tax claim against BB was established prior to the date of the instant donation contract (based on January 0, 201), and thus, the pertinent national tax claim is subject to the obligee’s right of revocation.

B. Whether a fraudulent act was committed

1) Relevant legal principles

If a debtor donated his/her own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, such act constitutes a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da57320, May 12, 1998; 2006Da11494, May 11, 2006; 2005Da28686, May 31, 2007).

2) Determination

BB concluded the instant gift contract with the Defendant with a view to excess of debt, and thus, the amount of liability property for the general creditors who are still insufficient is more deficient. Thus, the instant gift contract constitutes fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, including the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances, and the Defendant’s bad faith, which is the beneficiary, is presumed.

C. Whether the defendant acted in good faith

1) Summary of the defendant's assertion

Considering the following circumstances, the Defendant did not know that the instant gift contract was a fraudulent act. ① The Defendant was unaware of whether BB was subject to the instant tax investigation at the time of the instant gift contract, and as a result, did not know of the amount of the instant national tax claim. ② The Defendant’s representative knew that BB had been operating a ship with a company in each of the world in the name of “DD Commercial Act” and did not know of the personal obligation of BB. ③ The instant real estate remains as BB and CCC, and was used by the Defendant, and the instant real estate was donated to the Defendant according to the maintenance of FBB.

2) Relevant legal principles

In a lawsuit seeking a fraudulent act, the beneficiary has the burden of proving that he/she was a fraudulent act. In such a case, the beneficiary must bear the burden of proving himself/herself, and in recognizing that he/she was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, objective and acceptable evidence, etc., and only the unilateral statement of the debtor or a statement that is merely a third party's abstract statement, etc., that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act should not be readily concluded (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006).

3) Determination

The statement No. 1 alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was the good faith at the time of the donation contract in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the following facts are acknowledged in full view of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 8 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

① The instant gift contract was concluded on January 13, 201, when the instant tax investigation with respect to BB was conducted.

② CCC, a representative of the defendant, is a sentence BB.

③ The instant real estate was acquired by CCC due to inheritance, 6/17, 6/17, 2B, 4/17, and 1/17, but 6/17 of E’s equity interest was acquired by the Defendant on February 27, 1990, and 1/17 of NAF’s equity interest was acquired by CCC on November 21, 2005, and the Defendant, who acquired 4/17 of BB’s equity interest due to the instant gift, actually acquired the entire ownership of the instant real estate.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Methods of reinstatement;

BB and the Defendant shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant shall be obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on January 0, 201 by ○○ District Court ○○○ registry office ○○ with respect to the instant real estate, to the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons of the judgment as per Disposition.