Revocation of Fraudulent Act

As a factual basis, the donation contract for the instant real estate between the Nonparty and the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act, which is an act with knowledge that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, who is a tax claim, in order to evade tax liability.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation

2015 Ghana 53925 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Park ○

August 19, 2015

September 2, 2015

1. The contract of donation concluded between the defendant and the non-party title ○○ is revoked.

2. The defendant's identifications against Non-Party ○○.

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1, each transfer of ownership completed under No. 00 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1.

B. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 2, the procedure for registration of cancellation of each transfer of ownership completed by the head of ○○ District Court and the head of 1.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claims: To be as shown in attached Form of claims;

2. Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

Grounds for Claim

1. Relationship between the defendant and the non-party ○○

Defendant Park Jong-○ is the wife of Non-Party ○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “non-party ○○”) in arrears (referring to the “certificate of Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2’s family relationship”).

2. Details on establishment of tax claims, which are preserved claims;

A. The head of ○○○ book under the Plaintiff’s control notified the Nonparty of the total amount of KRW 545,70,240 for global income tax and global income tax under-reported by including processing personnel expenses, etc. after conducting a tax investigation on global income tax on the non-party’s global income tax attributed to 2009, 2013.

B. The Nonparty did not pay the notified national tax, and the current delinquent national tax amounted to KRW 563,397,480, including the additional dues.

3. Fraudulent act;

A. While it was predicted that the amount of national tax will be notified at the nearest time after receiving a tax investigation by the head of ○○○ Office under the Plaintiff’s control of the global income tax for each year, the Nonparty completed the registration of transfer of ownership of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1, which is the only property owned by himself/herself, on the ground that he/she is the spouse, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership of the real estate listed in the attached Table 2 (attached Table 1.2 hereinafter referred to as “the real estate of this case”), on the ground that he/she donated the Defendant, who is the spouse, with the real estate listed in the attached Table 2, on the ground that he/she was donated, the Nonparty would be insolvent, and the Plaintiff, the tax payer of the country, was the result of failing to obtain the satisfaction of the tax claim under the above Section 2.”

B. The non-party's act of registering the transfer of ownership on the ground of donation to the defendant, which is one of his properties available for national tax appropriation, is presumed to be a fraudulent act to evade the plaintiff's compulsory execution on the real estate of this case, which is a tax creditor due to the disposition of national tax in arrears without paying national taxes to him.

4. Whether the pertinent real estate was the primary property

The director of the regional tax office of Madice and the director of the regional tax office of the plaintiff have investigated the property of the non-party for the purpose of the disposition on default. The real estate of this case was the only property available for the appropriation of national taxes at the time of fraudulent act, as shown in the "Mad

5. Intention and bad faith of the defendant;

In the event that the Nonparty predicted that the amount of national tax would be notified due to the tax investigation, the Nonparty transferred the ownership of the instant real estate, which is the only property with property value owned by himself, to the Defendant on the ground of donation. This would have known that at the time of transfer, the Nonparty would have been able to harm the Plaintiff, who is a tax claim holder, and the Defendant would have known the Nonparty’s spouse of the fact that the said donation was fraudulent act and the Nonparty’s intention of deception.

6. The date on which he has become aware of a fraudulent act;

A public official belonging to the plaintiff was issued with a full certificate of registered matters and a family relation certificate of the real estate of this case and was aware of the non-party's fraudulent act in the course of conducting a delinquent disposition against the non-party in order to execute the delinquent disposition against the non-party.

7. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the donation contract for the real estate of this case between the Nonparty and the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act, which is an act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, who is a tax payer, in order to evade tax obligations. Therefore, the Plaintiff had caused the claim as stated in the purport of the claim in accordance with Article 406 of the Civil Act and Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act.