Since the gift contract of this case is ratified as a fraudulent act with knowledge that it would prejudice the plaintiff, the contract of this case is revoked.

Since JB, which bears tax liability against the plaintiff, deepened the debt excess by donation of the land of this case to the defendant, the gift of this case is a fraudulent act against the creditor unless there are special circumstances, and JB is confirmed to have committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the plaintiff, and thus, the contract of this case is revoked.

2012 Ghana 28950 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

JAA

March 27, 2013

April 10, 2013

1. The gift contract concluded on April 25, 2012 between the Defendant and JB is revoked with respect to the amount of 426 square meters, O-dong, Daejeon-dong O-dong, 000 square meters.

2. The Defendant shall comply with the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on April 25, 2012 by the Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon Registry, which was completed on April 25, 2012, to JB.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Facts of recognition

JB sold to thisCC on February 20, 2008, approximately 185 square meters, and four parcels, including 000 O20,000,000 OB, Dong-dong-dong-dong-si. Accordingly, JB was notified by the director of the Dong-dong District Tax Office under the Plaintiff of the date on which the liability for tax payment is constituted, and the payment period is as of July 31, 2012, KRW 00 of the transfer income tax for 2008, which was as of July 31, 2012, and did not pay it. The amount of national taxes of JB as of October 25, 2012, which was the date of the instant lawsuit, is KRW 00,000, JB completed the instant gift registration for the Defendant, one’s own child, as of April 25, 2012, the Daejeon District Court completed the instant gift transfer registration for 200,426 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant gift”).

Facts without any dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3, 4, and Gap evidence 5-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. Determination

According to the above facts, since the JB, which bears tax liability against the plaintiff, deepens the debt excess by donating the land of this case to the defendant, the gift of this case becomes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring any special circumstances, and the JB confirmed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the plaintiff, so the contract of this case was revoked, and the defendant is obliged to cancel the registration of this case to JB.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that JB did not make the gift of this case for the purpose of evading the transfer income tax, but the defendant's assertion is rejected since it is not necessary for the purpose of evading the claim of a specific creditor, since the fact that JB does not harm the creditor in a fraudulent act under Article 406 (1) of the Civil Code does not fall short of joint security.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.