It constitutes a fraudulent act if the only property of a delinquent taxpayer is transferred to a third party by sale.

The fact that the apartment house of this case, which is the only property of the delinquent taxpayer, was sold to the fraudulent person, was transferred for the purpose of evading national tax claims, and thus, constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of true title is

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2013 Ghana 217975 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

GuAA

August 26, 2013

September 16, 2013

1. The sales contract concluded on March 10, 2010 between the Defendant and B on the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall implement the procedure to transfer ownership registration for the real estate listed in the attached list to B, due to the restoration of the true name.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Tax claims against the plaintiff KimD

"The plaintiff designated the deadline for payment of corporate tax in February 1, 2008, 2009, OOOOOOO(2009, OOOOOO(2008, and 2008) as of February 28, 201 and notified the correction as the second taxpayer of the instant tax claim (Article 39(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes) on October 17, 201. The plaintiff designated KimD as the second taxpayer of the instant tax claim (hereinafter referred to as "instant tax claim"), and the non-party company and Kim DD are OOO(2), including additional charges.

B. Sales contract between KimD and the defendant

On March 10, 2010, "D KimD entered into a sales contract (hereinafter "the sale of this case") with the defendant who is the only property in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate in this case"), and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the defendant on the same day." [The grounds for recognition], "No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 and 3-1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings."

2. Defenses to present the safety;

When the Defendant deemed that the instant lawsuit was filed at the expiration of one year from the date of the sale or purchase of the instant case or the date of arrears between BB, the Plaintiff had already been aware of the cause of revocation one year prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and accordingly, the instant lawsuit filed for one year thereafter is unlawful as it exceeds the exclusion period.

"The date when the obligee, who is the starting point for the period of exclusion in the exercise of the obligee's right of revocation, becomes aware of the cause of revocation" means the date when the obligee became aware of the requirement of the obligee's right of revocation, that is, the date when the obligor became aware of the fact that the obligee had committed a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. The circumstance required by the Defendant alone alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was aware of

3. Judgment on the merits

(a) Claims for preservation;

(1) We examine the timing for establishing the instant taxation claim.

"In order to establish secondary tax liability, the occurrence of the fact that the primary taxpayer's failure to pay taxes, etc. meets the requirements thereof. Therefore, the establishment time of the secondary tax liability is after the lapse of at least the due date for payment of the primary tax liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du13234, May 9, 2012)." In addition, the timing of the secondary tax liability of BB is after February 28, 201, the due date for the payment of value-added tax and corporate tax of the non-party company, the primary taxpayer, and thus, the instant tax claim did not enter into

(2) However, in principle, it is required that a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be deemed a fraudulent act. However, at the time of such fraudulent act, there is a high probability that there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis for the establishment of a claim, and that a claim should be established in the near future in the near future. In the near future, where a claim has been established because its probability has been realized in the near future, the claim may also be the preserved claim, and the legal relationship that serves as the basis for the establishment of a claim shall not be limited to the legal relationship under an agreement between the parties, but shall be deemed to have

The above facts and the evidence revealed as follows. ① The date of establishing the duty to pay taxes of the non-party company was the corporate tax of December 31, 2008 and the corporate tax of December 31, 2009 (Article 21(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes) in the case of the non-party company's corporate tax and value-added tax, which are the basis of establishing the tax claim of this case at the time of the sales contract of this case. ② The non-party company had a high probability of establishing the tax claim of the corporate tax and value-added tax through tax investigation, etc. in the nearest future as long as the non-party company undergoes the above return. ③ In fact, since the plaintiff imposed the tax claim of this case on the non-party company on February 1, 201, the plaintiff becomes entitled to the creditor's right to revoke the tax claim of this case.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

(1) The instant sales contract in which the BB disposes of its sole property constitutes a fraudulent act as an act of reducing the joint security of other creditors, including the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances, and this B is presumed to have the intention of deception and the Defendant’s bad faith.

(2) The defendant asserts as follows.

In the auction procedure on the instant real estate, the decision of permission for sale was issued. The instant transaction is not deemed to be a fraudulent act in light of the substance of the instant act. In addition, the instant transaction cannot be deemed to be deemed to be a fraudulent act, and if so, the Defendant also acted in good faith, on the ground that it is difficult for BB to lend any additional loan due to the credit standing of the instant real estate at the lending financial institution. However, it is inevitable for the lending financial institution to enter into the instant sales contract with the Defendant and to obtain an additional loan and pay the successful bid price to the successful bidder and revoke the auction procedure.

Even if the defendant's assertion is true, it cannot be viewed that the sale of this case does not harm the general creditors of this BB including the plaintiff. The defendant's remaining assertion on this premise is without merit.

C. The method of reinstatement (1) legal principles

In addition to the cancellation of the registration in order to restore the true title of the registration, it is necessary to allow the person who has registered ownership in his future, or who has acquired ownership in accordance with the law to seek the implementation of the ownership transfer procedure directly against the present registered titleholder.

This legal doctrine may also apply to cases where the beneficiary seeks to return the title of the real estate for the purpose of revocation in a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act from the beneficiary to the debtor. Therefore, the creditor may seek the procedure for direct transfer of ownership against the beneficiary instead of seeking cancellation of the registration in the beneficiary’s name by means of restitution due to revocation of fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da53704, Feb. 25, 2000).

(2) In the instant case:

The defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership due to the cancellation of fraudulent act against KimD with respect to the instant real estate, which is the restoration to the original state.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.