In excess of debt, the act of donation of the instant real estate to the Defendant, who is the child, is a fraudulent act.

Since the act of the Nonparty’s donation of the instant real estate to the Defendant, in excess of debt, is a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is the Nonparty’s creditor, and the Nonparty’s intent and the Defendant’s bad faith, which is the beneficiary, is presumed, the said donation contract between the Nonparty and the Defendant should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

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

2016 Ghana 100037 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AA

May 18, 2016

June 15, 2016

1. The contract of donation concluded on March 3, 2015 between the defendant and the non-party BB regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. On March 6, 2015, the Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration made by the Changwon District Court Joint Registry on each of the above real estate with respect to Nonparty BB.

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. During the period from October 10, 2012 to June 30, 2015, Nonparty BB carried on the pipe pipe manufacturing business under the trade name, “O-type O-type O-type O-type” from October 10 to June 30, 2015.

B. BB is in arrears with the total amount of KRW 00,000,000, including KRW 00,000,000 and KRW 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

C. BB, on March 3, 2015, donated each real estate listed in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant real estate”) to the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “instant gift agreement”), and on March 6, 2015, on each of the instant real estate under the name of the Defendant, BB completed the registration of ownership transfer listed in the Disposition No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant ownership transfer”).

D. At the time of the instant donation contract, each of the instant real property was the sole property of BB.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry and pleading of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including a provisional number)

The purport of the whole

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, each of the instant taxation claims was concluded on the gift contract of this case.

3.3. It is established before. As such, the obligee’s right of revocation shall be the preserved claim.

The debtor's act of selling real estate, which is one of his own property, and replacing it with or transferring it to another person without compensation, becomes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring special circumstances. Thus, the debtor's intent of deception is presumed to exist, and the burden of proving that the purchaser or the transferee did not have bad faith is the beneficiary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001).

According to the above facts, since BB donated each of the instant real estate, the sole property, to the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, the instant gift contract constitutes fraudulent act, and the Defendant’s bad faith, the debtor, and the beneficiary, is presumed respectively.

B. As to this, the defendant defense to the effect that the defendant was a bona fide beneficiary who donated the real estate of this case to the defendant, and that the defendant was a bona fide beneficiary with respect to the intent of BB by respecting the intent of BB. However, there is no evidence to reverse the intent of BB recognized earlier or recognize the defendant as a bona fide beneficiary. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the gift contract of this case concluded between the defendant and BB constitutes a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership of this case to BB due to restitution to its original state, so the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.