applicable to fraudulent act

Since a real estate donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act, there is a duty to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration.

2015 Ghana 83142 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

BOO

2016.02.25

2016.03.17

1. The defendant and AAA (O.O.O.O., address: OO.O., O.O., address: O.O., O, O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong, and the gift contract concluded on July 28, 2010 is revoked.

2. The defendant shall comply with the procedures for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on July 28, 2010 by the receiptOOO of the O district court's OO branch office with respect to the real estate mentioned in paragraph (1) to AA.

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. Plaintiff’s claim against AA

1) During the period from July 13, 2009 to September 10, 2009, AA sold the O-dong O-dong O-O land, etc. (hereinafter “each taxable object of this case”) owned by it, but did not report the transfer income tax.

2) Around December 2012, the head of the OO under the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office confirmed the non-report of the transfer income tax of AA, and notified AA of a decision to impose the OOO of the transfer income tax for the year 2009 on the AA on December 31, 2012, and paid the transfer income tax by December 31, 2012. AA defaulted on the national tax of the OO members including the additional charges as of July 27, 2015.

(b) AA’s disposal act;

On July 27, 2010, AA entered into a donation contract (hereinafter referred to as "the donation contract of this case") with the Defendant, the wife, regarding the real estate in Paragraph 1 of this Article (hereinafter referred to as "real estate of this case"), and completed the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to the contract on the same day.

(c) The financial status of AA;

AA had the following positive and negative properties at the time of entering into the instant gift agreement.

(i)affirmative property;

(2) Petty property

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

According to the above facts, although the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax claim against AA has not yet been determined at the time of the instant disposal act, the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax claim against AA has already been transferred the real estate of this case to the end of the month to which the transfer date belongs ( July 31, 2009 and September 30, 2009), and the obligation to pay transfer income tax was established abstractly (Article 21(2)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes) and there was a high probability that the above transfer income tax claim will be established in the near future, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax claim against AA may become a preserved claim against the obligee’s transfer income tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Da5855, Apr. 26, 2013; 2000Da27821, Mar. 23, 2001).

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

According to the above facts, since AA, which had already been in excess of its obligation, disposes of the real estate of this case and the joint collateral for the general creditors is less than one story, the disposal act of this case constitutes fraudulent act, and the defendant's bad faith as the deceased will and beneficiary of AA is presumed to constitute fraudulent act.

C. Determination as to the defendant's bona fide defense

In light of the above, the defendant's assertion to the effect that only the real estate of this case was donated to the defendant on the ground that the defendant's property was made hot due to the reason that the defendant's business was conducted, and thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary, in full view of the fact that the defendant was in a marital relationship with the AA and was deemed to have been well aware of the property status of the AA. Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

(d) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Therefore, the gift contract of this case concluded between the defendant and AA shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant shall be obliged to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which is completed with respect to the real estate of this case, to restore the original state to its original state.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.