subject to revocation of fraudulent act between the defendant who is a beneficiary and debtor

Since the debtor's fraudulent act, intent to injure himself, insolvency, etc. is recognized and the defendant, who is a beneficiary, is aware of this, it should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff.

Article 30 (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act)

2015 Ghana 138618 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

annualA

July 15, 2016

July 20, 2016

1. B between B and the Defendant:

(1) To cancel the sales contract concluded on July 5, 2013 for the real estate listed in [Attachment A] List 1 and 2; and

(2) The sales contract concluded on August 6, 2013 for the real estate listed in attached Table 3 shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 11,00,000.

2. On July 18, 2013, the Defendant completed ○○ District Court ○○○○ Branch ○○○ Registry ○236, which was completed on July 18, 2013 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, the Defendant will implement the registration procedure for cancellation of each share transfer that was completed under No. 114735, which was received on July 18, 2013.

3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,00,000 won and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when this judgment is finalized to the day of complete payment.

4. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

Judgment like the Disposition

1. Facts of recognition;

Evidence A1 through A11 and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. Tax claims against the Plaintiff’s annualB

B. On February 19, 2013, 2013, ○○○○○○○○○○○○-gu, ○○○○○○-15, and reported the tax amount of KRW 91,271,019 to be reduced or exempted, but the head of the ○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control of the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption for self-Cultivating farmland under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and imposed capital gains tax of KRW 93,590,410 on September 30, 2013 pursuant to Article 114 of the Income Tax Act, including imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 93,590,410 on the annual

(b) sales contract between B and the Defendant;

(1) On September 1, 201, the Defendant lent KRW 50 million to SB, a private village, to B. The Defendant promised to transfer the ownership of each real estate listed in the separate sheet to B in lieu of paying the above amount, and the Defendant paid KRW 34 million to B.

(2) On July 5, 2013, a yearB entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, and completed each share transfer registration as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 as ○○ District Court ○○○○ Branch ○○○ Branch ○○ ○236, July 18, 2013, and as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 114735, Jul. 18, 2013.

In addition, on August 6, 2013, annualB entered into a sales contract with the Defendant by setting the purchase price of KRW 11,00,000 for the real estate listed in attached Table 3, and completed the registration of share transfer as the receipt No. 125128 on August 7, 2013. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the registration of share transfer was completed on August 21, 2013 under the name of annualCC on the ground of the partition of co-owned property on August 21, 2013.

(c)the insolvency of a chainB;

B’s active property as of July 5, 2013 was KRW 84 million, small property was KRW 307,255,320, and the active property as of August 6, 2013 was KRW 11 million, and small property was KRW 314,291,50,000, and KRW 314,291,550. The annualB had no other property than the real property as listed in the attached Table.

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment of this court

A. In a case where the obligor’s property is insufficient to fully repay the obligor’s obligation, and where the obligor offered the obligor’s property to a certain obligee as payment in kind or as a collateral, barring any special circumstance, it would immediately compromise the interests of other obligees and thereby constitute a fraudulent act in relation to other obligees (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da18218, Jul. 12, 2007). In principle, the obligor’s selling of real estate, which is the only property, and changing the obligor’s property into money that is readily valuable for consumption, constitutes a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da54420, Apr. 14,

According to the above facts of recognition, the act of the debtor's annualB's act of selling each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the defendant in excess of his/her obligation at the same time constitutes fraudulent act in relation to the plaintiff, who is the tax payer, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed

B. Therefore, the sales contract concluded on July 5, 2013 between B and the Defendant on the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 shall be revoked, and the Defendant shall restore to its original state the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 to its original state, and the Defendant shall complete the registration procedure for cancellation of each share transfer registration completed on July 18, 2013 by ○○ District Court ○○○○○○○ Branch ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 36, which was received on July 18, 2013, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3, since it is impossible or considerably difficult to restore to its original state due to the transfer of shares in the name of “CC,” the sales contract concluded on August 6, 2013 shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 1,100,000,000 per annum.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.