Where the transfer of the right to sell is a fraudulent act, the method of restitution and the scope of cancellation;

It is necessary to revoke the fraudulent act only within the extent of the market price of the right of sale at the time of the fraudulent act, and the market price of the right of sale is the sale price paid at the time of the fraudulent

2018 Ghana 552710 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

OO

April 24, 2019

May 15, 2019

1. The gift agreement concluded between the defendant and the non-party AA on the 99% share of the ownership in the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked within the scope of OOO.O.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00% interest per annum from the day following the date this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. Of the litigation costs, 80% is borne by the Defendant, and 20% is borne by the Plaintiff, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The agreement on the donation of the right to purchase real estate entered in the separate sheet between the defendant and AA shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 00,000. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day after the date the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. AA, while operating a motor vehicle sales business, omitted part of each tax payment was made at the time of the return of corporate tax for the second and second years 2011 and 1, 2012, and 2016. Accordingly, the head of the OCO notified AA of the payment of the omitted tax amount, such as the value-added tax OOOOO, of the payment deadline as specified in the table 1 below, but AA did not pay AA. The base amount of delinquent tax as of the filing date of the instant lawsuit (as of November 8, 2018), including additional OOO, as shown in the table below.

B. AA had the right to purchase apartment units listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter the instant right to purchase the apartment units) and paid the sales price to OO and OO members of the intermediate payment and the total amount of OO members of the two-minutes of the sales price (Provided, That among the above payments, OO members are paid in the Defendant’s money). AA received a notice for payment of each tax around 2017O.O.O.O. and around 2017O.O.O.O. as a result of the above tax liability, upon receiving a notice for payment of the said tax, the instant right to purchase the apartment units from the above delinquent tax would be subject to compulsory execution, the Defendant, who is the spouse, donated the share of 99% of the instant right to purchase the sales. The Defendant additionally paid the sales price.

C. The active property of the 2017O.O. AA, which was at the time of the instant donation, was only the sales right of the instant case, and the value of the sales is equivalent to the amount of the OO.O.O.A.’s small property of the AA is equivalent to the amount of the principal of the instant tax liability, and thus, exceeds the amount of the obligation.

[Evidence: Evidence No. 1 to 6, Evidence No. 11, All purport of oral argument]

2. Determination

A. Pursuant to Article 21(1) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the value-added tax and corporate tax are each liable for tax payment when the taxable period expires. The Plaintiff’s tax claimOOO as of the date of donation of the instant inheritance right was already established, and thus, the said tax claim becomes a preserved claim for revocation of fraudulent act. In addition, as at the date of donation, AA had already been in excess of its obligation and it was well aware that the Plaintiff’s joint security would deepen due to the deepening of the shortage of the common security of the creditors by donation to the Defendant, who is the sole property of the instant inheritance right, and thus, AA’s intent is presumed to be the beneficiary as long as AA’s intent is recognized. Accordingly, the donation of the instant inheritance right constitutes a fraudulent act and thus becomes subject to revocation.

B. Furthermore, in cases where a public health account and a contract for the transfer of ownership rights constitute a fraudulent act with regard to the method and scope of restitution, in principle, the entire transfer contract and the order for restoration of ownership rights itself shall be cancelled, but in cases where the beneficiary who takes over ownership rights at the time of partial payment of the sale price as in the instant case pays the sale price additionally thereafter, the cancellation of the entire transfer contract and the order for restoration of ownership rights itself would result in a violation of fairness and fairness, as it would result in an order for restoration to the portion which was not originally common creditors' joint security. In such cases, the sale price of ownership rights shall be calculated based on the sale price already paid at the time of the transfer contract.

According to the above facts, AA donated 9% of the sales right of this case to the Defendant under the condition that it was paid by the OOOO.O.O. performance deposit, etc., and the OO. from among the OO. performance deposit paid at the time was paid in the Defendant’s money, so the scope of revocation is determined in light of this, it shall be the OO(O.O. x 99%). Accordingly, the Defendant, as an effect of revocation of fraudulent act, shall return the OO to the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the gift contract concluded between the defendant and AA with respect to the 99% share out of the number of real estate in this case shall be revoked within the scope of the OOO, and the defendant shall be obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day following the day when this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment as requested by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as without merit.