The sale of current property in excess of the debt constitutes a fraudulent act.

AA’s sales of the instant real estate, which is one-day property, to the Defendant in excess of its obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act converted from money that is easily converted into money for consumption of general property belonging to joint security of the general creditor, including the Plaintiff.

Article 406 of the Civil Act, the obligee's right of revocation

2014 Ghana 200999 Revocation of fraudulent act

Korea

○ ○

July 2, 2014

August 20, 2014

1. The sales contract concluded on July 23, 2013 between the defendant and AA with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall comply with the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on July 24, 2013 by the registry office of the district court with respect to the real estate stated in the above paragraph (1) to AA.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 1, 2013, AA reported the purchase amount at the time of filing the final return of value-added tax (the date of establishing the tax liability) on February 2, 2012, and the head of a tax office affiliated with the Plaintiff notified AAOO of value-added tax to AA on August 31, 2013, but AA did not pay it and thus, the amount of national taxes in arrears as of the date of filing the lawsuit reaches the OOO.

B. AA completed the registration of ownership transfer due to sale on July 23, 2013 under the name of the Defendant as the receipt No. 0000 on July 24, 2013 by the registry office of the district court (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

C. On October 16, 2013, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the Defendant in the process of inspecting the copy of the register of AAA for the disposition on default.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the sale of the instant real estate by AA to the Defendant in excess of its obligation constitutes a fraudulent act which is readily replaced by money, which is part of a common obligee’s joint security, including the Plaintiff, and as long as the intent of the damage of AAA, a debtor, is recognized, the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to have been presumed to have been the beneficiary. Therefore, the above sales contract should be revoked, and the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for registration cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed with respect to the instant real estate to the original state.

B. As to this, due to the friendly relationship between AAA and BB, a de facto representative of BB, the Defendant lent OOO in the name of the Defendant to AA on or after July 201, and the Defendant lent DOOO to AA on or after the end of September 201, to the Defendant’s husband, and received some OOOO shares from AA on January 19, 201, after the Defendant lent DOOOO shares to AA on or after January 19, 2012, and received some OOO shares. The Defendant calculated the purchase price as the purchase price and received the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant real estate from the Defendant’s husband. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this fact (the Defendant was not present on the date of pleading 1 and 2, and even if the Defendant was absent on the date of pleading, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that it was not attached to the above domestic document).

3. Conclusion

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