In a lawsuit for revocation of creditor, the period of exclusion falls under the requirements of lawsuit and is dismissed if not observed.

If an action for revocation by a creditor is brought after the expiration of the exclusion period, the action shall be dismissed.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration of Fraudulent Act

2015 Ghana 232655 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

1. Korea;

1. The lecture;

on January 23, 2016

December 20, 2016

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The contract of donation concluded on July 31, 2013 with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and KimB (*************) shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 87,00,000. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 87,00,000 and interest calculated at the rate of KRW 5% per annum from the day following the day the judgment of this case became final to the day of full payment.

The Defendant’s lawsuit of this case was filed after the expiration of the exclusion period, and thus, deemed unlawful.

On September 24, 2015, the filing date of the lawsuit by KimB, as of September 24, 2015, 2012, KRW 288,864,360 of global income tax for the year 2012, KRW 49,220,150 of global income tax for the year 2013, global income tax for the year 1,669,200, KRW 339,753,710 of total income tax for the year 2014, KimB did not pay KRW 339,753,710 of total amount. On July 31, 2013, KimB concluded a contract with the defendant who is his spouse, and completed the registration of ownership transfer; the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's application for the liquidation of the real estate 209,30,000 from the 2014, was revoked on June 30, 2014.

If the obligor has, with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, performed a juristic act which aims at a property right, the obligee may request the court to cancel it and restore the original state. Such a suit shall be instituted within one year from the date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause of cancellation and within five years from the date of the juristic act (Article 406 of the

In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Plaintiff, at the latest, was aware of the fact that KimB, the debtor, on September 23, 2014, entered into a contract to donate the instant real estate to the Defendant, the husband, on July 31, 2013. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful since it was filed on September 24, 2014, one year after the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the said contract was concluded.

The plaintiff claims that the debtor's property belongs to the debtor's property at the time of withholding the liquidation of global income tax or cancellation of the disposition deferment of liquidation shall be confirmed only when the debtor's property exists, and that the existence of fraudulent act and intention to harm the KimB was known only in the course of investigating the delinquency in arrears from the GG regional tax office's delinquent investigation team on February 2, 2015. However, according to the regulations on the collection of national tax affairs, when the disposition of liquidation is deferred, the current status of the delinquent taxpayer's property can be investigated into the current status of the delinquent taxpayer's property and prepared an investigation report, etc. (Article 128); the head of the tax office under the plaintiff's control shall immediately hold the delinquent taxpayer's property (including the delinquent taxpayer's family information if the deferred amount is at least 10,000,000 won) immediately after the delinquent amount occurred (Article 122). In light of the fact that the above assertion is not persuasive).

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is dismissed.