The burden of proving whether a delinquent taxpayer’s payment of money to his/her children is a donation or a debt repayment is made is against a person who seeks revocation of a fraudulent act.

In order for a delinquent taxpayer to be recognized as a fraudulent act to pay money to his/her children, the fact that the act of paying money constitutes a donation shall be proved, and the burden of proof shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2018 Ghana 113826

Korea

IsaA

In addition, thisCC has also supported thisB with operating and living expenses.

Since then, thisB shall grant to the Defendant KRW 32,00,000,000, paid from the AF to the Defendant

In other words, the payment of the said money was not made by donation but by the defendant, CC and UCC.

It is the repayment of borrowed money.

3. Determination

(a) An act of paying money to a beneficiary by a creditor seeking the revocation of a fraudulent act;

In regard to the assertion that the gift is a gift, the beneficiary has received it as a repayment for the existing obligation.

In the case of dispute, this constitutes not only the denial of the creditor's assertion, but also the debtor's assertion.

§ 30,000,000,000,000,00

In order to recognize the act of payment of the above money as a fraudulent act, the money must be paid in the end.

It is proved that the act of payment constitutes a gift or does not constitute a performance of the claim, thereby undermining the creditor.

It should be proved that there are special circumstances, such as intention, etc., and the burden of proof therefor is a fraudulent act.

on the other hand, the claimant asserts (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da28686, May 31, 2007).

payment of money to constitute a gift shall be made between the debtor and the beneficiary objectively.

"Gift" and free of charge, of money paid, as such, to the beneficiary, which is ultimately reverted to the beneficiary.

must be interpreted as having the agreement between the parties with respect to giving.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861 Decided July 26, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2014Da30861 Decided November 27, 2014

212780 [see Supreme Court Decision 212780]

(b) health team for the instant case, the facts acknowledged earlier, as well as the statement in Eul Nos. 1 and 2; and

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s submission

on the sole basis of the evidence and the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, as alleged above, between B and the Defendant

donation was made, or the defendant in collusion with this BB, with the intent to prejudice the creditor such as the plaintiff.

It is insufficient to conclude that the source was paid, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's claim shall not be accepted even if the plaintiff's claim is not examined.

1) B on August 28, 2014, 201 201 △△ apartment, a rental apartment located in ○○-gu, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, 201

1702 leased, and on the same day, 20,700,000 won from the account in the name of thisCC to the account in this case.

At the time, the Defendant made the instant account available to B, a bad credit holder, for use by the Defendant.

The assertion was made that it had been argued.

2) “Releting to the instant account in the appropriate column for KRW 5 million deposited on November 17, 2014.”

Money is indicated as “money”, and five million won is from the said account to the Defendant ○ bank account in the name of the Defendant on December 26, 2013.

The source was withdrawn from the National Assembly.

3) As seen earlier, on March 9, 2017, the check of KRW 32 million issued in FF and the check of KRW 32 million was the instant account.

After deposit, 5 million won out of the above money is remitted to thisB on March 10, 2017, and 27 million won is transferred to thisB on March 10, 2017.

3.21. Money was withdrawn in cash.

4) Taking into account the above circumstances and the relationship between this BB and the Defendant, thisCC, and thisB;

There is no monetary loan agreement made between BB and the Defendant; or

In addition, only the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, such as thisCC’s person responsible for supporting thisB:

It can not be ruled out that the Defendant received the above KRW 32 million as debt repayment against B.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

August 23, 2018

September 20, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The contract of donation of KRW 32,00,000 between the Defendant and the BB on March 9, 2017 shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 32,00,000.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 32,00,000 won and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when this judgment is finalized to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A.B married with the UCC, but divorced, and between them, thisCC and the Defendant was a child.

B. This B had not reported and paid value-added tax properly while operating a speculative game site under the trade name of ○○○○○.

C. Accordingly, on February 5, 2007, the head of the ○○ Tax Office imposed value-added tax of KRW 567,393,160 (payment period: February 28, 2007) on B on the first quarter of 2006. However, the said B did not pay KRW 984,541,360 in total, as of April 16, 2018, the value-added tax and surcharges 417,148,200 as of April 16, 2018.

D. Meanwhile, on March 9, 2017, the KRW 32 million check issued by the FF, a debtor to thisB, was deposited into the account of △△△ Fund in the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “instant account”) on the same day. [Grounds for recognition] The parties did not dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul’s evidence No. 2, and the parties’ assertion as to the purport of the entire pleadings;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the course of this BB’s repayment from the debtor FF, the 32 million won check issued by the FF was deposited into the instant account in the name of the defendant on March 9, 2017. This constitutes a gift to the defendant of this B, and the said gift agreement entered into between this BB and the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act that reduces the joint security of the general creditors such as the plaintiff of this B, and the debtor’s intent and the defendant’s bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary.

Therefore, the above donation contract should be revoked, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 32 million won and delay damages.

B. Defendant’s assertion

BB became a bad credit holder while operating a speculative game, and became divorced from the UCC, and was not able to prepare a lease deposit even if the rental apartment was sold in lots.

Accordingly, on August 28, 2014, the Defendant lent money to thisB by collecting KRW 33,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 with LCC and mother,