Act of transferring the ownership of real estate to evade tax liability constitutes a fraudulent act.

If the registration of transfer of ownership of the real estate of this case was made under the foreseeable that the national taxes of the commencement of tax investigation and amount of gross national taxes due to the omission of a report on sale will be notified, it shall be null and void by a fraudulent act to escape compulsory execution

1. The sales contract concluded on October 13, 2006 between Defendant OO and Nonparty 200 is revoked.

2. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff:

A. OOO is a registration of O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the ownership transfer registration completed under No. 85131, Oct. 19, 2006;

B. The defendant OOO was registered as O branch of the O branch of the District Court and the transfer of ownership that completed under No. 42356 on June 1, 2007;

Each cancellation registration procedure shall be implemented.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claim;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

Grounds of Claim

1. The relationship between Nonparty 1 and the Defendants

Defendant 1 OO was born (referring to a transcript of No. 1-2) in 19 OO-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-O in 19O, and the Nonparty was born (referring to a transcript of No. 1-2) in 19O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O(referring to a copy of No. 1-2 of Evidence No.1-2) in 19O-O-O-O-O.O-O-O-O. The Defendant 1 and the Nonparty were born (referring to a copy of No. 1-2 of Evidence No. 1) in the same village, and from 19O-dong to 19O, Defendant 1 was born (referring to the Nonparty 1-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O's domicile.

2. Formation of a taxation claim which is a preserved claim;

A. The Nonparty, from February 23, 2004 to June 30, 2006, operated a speculative game room in the name of "OO-O2" at OO-O2, O-O2, O-O2, O-type, O-type, O-O2, O-type, O-type, O-type, O-type. (See subparagraph 2 of A).

B. In relation to the operation of the above business, the non-party paid the value-added tax under consideration by omitting the sales at the time of the return on February 2, 2005 and January 2006. To this end, the director of the listed tax office affiliated with the plaintiff notified the amount of KRW 43,008,530 as of March 31, 2007, and KRW 260,905,200 as of January 2006, which was not paid until now, but did not pay the amount of national tax in excess of KRW 773,020,30,00 including the additional dues (see subparagraph 3-1 and 2 of the evidence of subparagraph 3).

3. Fraudulent act;

A. Even though the entrepreneur has faithfully reported the tax pursuant to tax-related Acts and voluntarily paid the relevant national tax, the Nonparty was in the status of paying the value-added tax by omitting the sales at the time of the return on February 2, 2005 and January 2006;

B. He reported that the game room becomes a social issue, and that a large tax investigation on the game room has been initiated in various media (see the evidence No. 4-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 4, referring to the newspaper articles related to the tax investigation on the game room).

C. On January 11, 2007, the director of the OO head of the tax office affiliated with the plaintiff selected the above workplace as a person subject to on-site verification and conducted a tax investigation on the return of value-added tax by omitting sales from January 12, 2007 to February 2, 2007 as the investigation period. (See Evidence A No. 5)

D. On October 19, 2006, the Nonparty, upon recognizing that the high amount of national tax was notified, issued the registration of OO branch office OO support and the registration of transfer of ownership with No. 85131 on October 13, 2006 to OOO on the ground of the sales contract on October 19, 2006 (referring to the "certificate of registry No. 6").

E. The Nonparty intended to be exempted from compulsory execution such as seizure of the instant real estate due to delinquency in national tax by completing the registration of ownership transfer to Defendant 1. However, upon the establishment of provisional seizure of the instant real estate by Defendant 1’s creditor on April 20, 2007 by the Korea Housing Corporation (the obligee), the Nonparty resided in Defendant 2’s wife on June 1, 2007, as OO District Court OOOO support registration and receipt No. 42356, the Nonparty completed the registration of ownership transfer to Defendant 1 as Defendant 2. In ordinary real estate transactions, the provisional seizure registration was cancelled, but the ownership transfer registration was cancelled by the provisional seizure registration was cancelled on June 22, 2007 (see the transcript No. 6). The Nonparty’s mother’s ownership was transferred to Defendant 1, the Nonparty’s wife’s domicile and the Nonparty’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s real estate ownership.

G. The non-party's act of re-registration of the ownership transfer of the real estate of this case to Defendant 1 on the ground that the non-party did not pay a national tax that the non-party would have been notified of the commencement of tax investigation and the high amount of national tax due to the omission of the sale. The non-party's act of transferring the ownership of this case to Defendant 2, who is the non-party's wife, transferred the ownership again to Defendant 1, who is the non-party's wife, the non-party's mother, continued to have registered the real estate of this case, and the non-party's non-party's mother did not pay the notified value-added tax at all until now.

4. Bad faith and the defendants' bad faith

The Nonparty had known the Plaintiff at the time of transferring the instant real estate, which could be appropriated for national tax to Defendant 1, due to sale, in order to avoid the execution of the disposition of national tax in arrears due to the notice of national tax payment, when the liability for tax payment was already established. The Defendants, as the Nonparty’s relative and wife, should be deemed to have known of the fact that the transfer was fraudulent act and the Nonparty’s intent of deception.

5. Whether it constitutes the real estate property of this case (whether it exceeds obligations)

As of the date of the fraudulent act, the non-party's active property as of the date of the fraudulent act by the head of the OOO under the plaintiff's head of the tax office conducted an investigation on the non-party's property for the purpose of the disposition on default. The amount of the non-party's active property is much less than 10,556,099 won for the national tax liability for which the tax claim has already been established (refer to the evidence No. 8 of this case) and the amount of the non-party's active property as of the date of the fraudulent act, and the amount of the non-party's land's OOOO No. 10,000,000, and the officially announced land price of the OO-O-O-O No.

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

The plaintiff was issued on November 19, 2007 and became aware of the fraudulent act of this case in order to execute the disposition on default against the non-party that the real estate of this case was registered in the name of the defendants.

7. Conclusion

The act of the Nonparty’s completion of the registration of ownership transfer to Defendant 1 on the instant real estate on the grounds of sale, and the act of Defendant 1’s completion of the registration of ownership transfer to Defendant 2 constitutes a fraudulent act under Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act by knowing that he would prejudice the Plaintiff, who is a creditor, in order to evade tax liability of the Nonparty.

In accordance with Article 406 of the Civil Act and Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act, the plaintiff has reached the claim as stated in the purport of the claim.