act of transferring the sole property of a delinquent taxpayer constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor.

by transferring the sole property to a delinquent taxpayer, resulting in insolvent, which constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor due to the decrease in liability property.

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

2016 Ghana 121533 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Section AA

2017.07.19

2017.08.16

1. On February 21, 2014, the purchase and sale reservation entered into on February 21, 2014 and the sales contract entered into on May 8, 2015 between the defendant and the non-party B, respectively, shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 37 million won with 5% interest per annum from the day after the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

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. Tax claims against the Plaintiff’s bookB

SB is a person who engages in an import or export business related to motor vehicles under the trade name of "O, O, O, OO," from February 25, 2008 to April 30, 2015, and who engages in an import or export business related to motor vehicles from OO to OO, O, O, O, O, O, as specified below.

(b) entering into a pre-sale and sales contract for 1/2 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the two B and the Defendant;

1) On April 10, 2004, SB and SCC completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 14, 2009 by reason of inheritance by consultation and division on April 10, 2004.

2) On February 21, 2014, and May 8, 2015, SB entered into a sales contract with the Defendant, the spouse of SCC, and one-half of the shares of the instant real estate. On March 3, 2014, the OO District Court OOOO registry office completed the transfer registration with the receipt OOOOOO on May 8, 2015.

3) On February 21, 2014 with respect to the instant real estate, the establishment registration was concluded between Canada and OO bank. On the same day, the establishment registration was completed as OO district registry No. OOOOOOO of the O district court with the maximum debt amount of KRW 60,00,000.

(c) the financial status of uB;

SuB did not have any liability property that could otherwise become a joint collateral for the general creditors, except 1/2 shares among the real estate in this case at the time of February 21, 2014, the market price of which is equivalent to KRW 45,000,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, 6 and 7, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the establishment of fraudulent act

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

(1) The existence of preserved claims

In principle, a debtor shall be entitled to a claim protected by a creditor's right of revocation.

In light of the fact that a juristic act aimed at property rights should have arisen before it is performed for the purpose of property rights. However, at the time of the juristic act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis for the establishment of a claim, and there is high probability that a claim would accrue in the near future, and in the near future, where a claim is realized and its probability has actually occurred in the near future, the claim may also become the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 2

According to the above facts, at the time of February 21, 2014, the Plaintiff had a high probability of establishing the claim in the near future due to the occurrence of basic legal relations with respect to value-added tax and global income tax as of February 21, 2014, and the possibility was realized and the claim has been established. As such, the Plaintiff’s tax claim against SeoB may be the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation.

(2) The establishment of a piracy

As recognized earlier, SB has already been subject to value-added tax and global income tax, or is anticipated to be subject to value-added tax, sold 1/2 shares of the real estate in this case, which is one of its sole property, to the Defendant as its form of punishment. In light of the property status of SB and the circumstances leading up to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s tax claims against SB, it appears that SB was sufficiently aware that SB would cause the reduction of liability by transferring ownership to the Defendant with respect to 1/2 shares of the instant real estate, and that the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to have been the beneficiary.

Therefore, the above sales contract and the sales contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act by the SeoB with the Defendant regarding the shares of 1/2 of the instant real estate.

B. Judgment on the defendant's defense

The defendant defenses that at the time of the conclusion of the trade reservation with the SB, the defendant did not know at all that the trade reservation was detrimental to the creditors of SB including the plaintiff. However, the defendant's defense is not sufficient to recognize only the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 8 and the testimony of SCC by the witness, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Methods and scope of reinstatement;

According to the above facts, since the OO bank after fraudulent act acquired the registration of creation of a mortgage in the vicinity of the maximum amount of claims 60,000,000 with respect to the real estate in this case, the defendant, who is the beneficiary, is clearly difficult to recover the original property in a state where there is no restriction on the above right to collateral security. Therefore, the defendant, as the restoration to original state, is liable to compensate for the amount equivalent to the amount of the plaintiff's preserved claim within the limit of the value of the

From February 21, 2014, the market price of 1/2 shares in the instant real estate is equivalent to KRW 45,00,000 as of February 21, 2014. The market price is confirmed as identical to the date of the closing of the instant argument. The Plaintiff’s taxation claim amount as of the date of the closing of the instant argument against SeoB is KRW 52,645,990, as seen earlier.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 37,00,000 won and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day immediately after the date of this decision to the day of full payment, within the scope of the amount equivalent to the market value of 1/2 shares among the real estate in this case, which is the joint security value.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.