It is not necessary that the debtor's bad faith, i.e., the existence of a relationship with the general creditor, and that there is sufficient awareness that it would prejudice a specific creditor.

A debtor's bad faith, i.e., the awareness that the debtor's act of disposal of the debtor's property has decreased and that the debtor's joint security could not fully satisfy the creditor's claims because the debtor's act of disposal of the debtor's property is insufficient or joint security already in shortage is more than one story, and such recognition does not require the awareness that it is sufficient in relation to the general creditor and that it would prejudice a specific creditor.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Ghana 8928 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Ansan et al.

November 29, 2012

December 20, 2012

1. As to each real estate listed in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Schedule,

A. Revocation of the gift agreement entered into on March 2, 2012 between the Defendant AA and Nonparty AB, and:

B. Defendant AA shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on March 5, 2012 by the Chuncheon District Court No. 10991, which was completed on March 5, 2012.

2. As to real estate listed in Attachment 4:

A. Revocation of the gift agreement concluded on March 9, 2012 between the Defendant AA and AB, and:

B. Defendant AA shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed by the District Court No. 12291 of March 12, 2012, the receipt of which was completed on March 12, 2012.

3. As to real estate listed in Attachment 5:

A. Revocation of the gift agreement concluded on March 26, 2012 between the Defendant A and AB;

B. Defendant AA shall comply with the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on March 26, 2012 by the Chuncheon District Court No. 15096, which was completed on March 26, 2012.

4. As to each real estate listed in paragraphs 6 through 8 of the Schedule,

A. Revocation of the sales contract concluded on March 2, 2012 between Defendant Jeong-CC and PartyB; and

B. Defendant Jeong-CC shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed by the District Court No. 10992, Mar. 5, 2012, Chuncheon District Court (UB) to CheongB.S.

5. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged in the absence of dispute between the parties, or in the entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 16 (including the number of branch numbers), together with the purpose of the whole pleadings:

A. From September 1, 1996 to December 31, 2008, Nonparty AB served as the representative of the limited partnership company construction from September 1, 1996 to December 31, 2008, and operated the mid-term rental business under the trade name of “O-medium period” from December 29, 195 to February 28, 2012. Defendant A-AA is the wife of PB who completed the report of marriage with the PB on January 11, 1988, and Defendant PCC is the birth of PB.

B. The head of Chuncheon Tax Office issued a notice of change in the amount of income on February 12, 2010, after disposing of 000 won, such as short-term loans appropriated in the assets of a corporation, as the representative at the time of closing a limited partnership construction XX, and given notice of change in the amount of income on February 12, 201. The notice of prior notice of taxation was given on December 23, 201, and on February 1, 2012, issued a notice of determination of 000 won of global income tax for the year 2008. In addition, on December 6, 2011, the head of Chuncheon Tax Office intended to notify 000 won of value-added tax for the period of OO on December 6, 2011.

C. As of July 2, 2012, JeongB did not pay the sum of the value-added tax, global income tax, and its additional dues (hereinafter “instant tax”). As of July 2, 2012, the year to which the pertinent tax belongs, the date of establishment of tax liability, etc. are as listed below:

D. After receiving a decision and notification from the Plaintiff regarding the instant tax, JungB donated each real estate listed in paragraphs (1) through (5) of the attached list to the Defendant Ansan as follows, sold each real estate listed in paragraphs (6) through (8) of the attached list to Defendant JungCC, and completed the registration of ownership transfer thereof (hereinafter the following sequence, "each gift contract between JungB and the Defendant Ansan" was "each gift contract between YB and YA", and "the sales contract between HaB and YA" was "the 4th sales contract between Y and YA", and "each registration of ownership transfer" was "each ownership transfer" as referred to in paragraphs (1) through (4) of the attached list.

E. At the time of concluding the instant donation contract and the instant 4 sales contract, the real estate was each real estate indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 to 8 of the attached Table Nos. 1 of the 200 won, while the real estate was a small property, there were more than KRW 000,000 in total, and more than KRW 00,000 in total, with respect to the Plaintiff’s tax liability against the Plaintiff, as well as the loan obligation against the Chuncheon Agricultural Cooperative

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

(a) Claims for preservation;

The amount of a claim to be preserved for fraudulent act is included in the interest or delay damages incurred after the fraudulent act and until the conclusion of the arguments in fact-finding proceedings, and such legal principle also applies to the additional dues of national taxes. According to the above facts-finding, the claim of this case against the plaintiff JeongB shall be subject to the creditor's right of revocation, unless there are special circumstances.

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

As seen earlier, as acknowledged in the court below, the Defendant AA entered into a donation contract with respect to each of the real estate listed in paragraphs (1) through (5) of the attached list Nos. 1 through 3, which is his major property in excess of debt, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership as to each of the real estate listed in paragraphs (6) through (8) of the attached list Nos. 1 through 3, and the execution of the sales contract of this case No. 4 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership as to each of the real estate listed in the attached list No. 6 through (8) with

Furthermore, the so-called obligor's bad faith, i.e., that the obligor, the subjective requirement of the obligee's right of revocation, was aware that the obligor's act of disposal of the obligor's property reduced and thus, the obligor's joint security of the claim is not sufficient or sufficient to satisfy the obligee's claim in full due to the obligor's lack of joint security of the claim, and such recognition is not necessary to be recognized as sufficient and specific obligee in relation to the general obligee (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da57320, May 12, 1998). In light of the above facts recognized as above, the obligor's intention is presumed to have been expressed by Jung because it was known that the obligor knew of the shortage of joint security due to the Plaintiff's act of disposal of the property, the sales contract of the instant case No. 4, and the transfer registration of the ownership of the instant case No. 1 through No. 4, and thus, it would be presumed that the Defendants had intention to commit harm to Jung.

C. Determination on Defendant AA’s assertion

Defendant AA asserts to the effect that each real estate listed in paragraphs (1) through (5) of the attached list was received as a division of property or consolation money on the premise that the Defendant AA would divorced from AB, and thus, the contract of gift Nos. 1 through 3 of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act.

In light of the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, division of property in divorce shall contribute to the maintenance of the other party’s livelihood at the same time as the other party is liquidated and distributing the common property in substance that had been married. However, division of property may include mental damage (defluence) incurred by divorce by the other party’s flexible act. In determining the amount and method of division of property, it is apparent that taking into account the amount of property achieved by both parties’ cooperation and other private disputes is clearly stipulated in Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act. Thus, even if a split-off of property has already contributed to the formation of common property, the amount and method of division may be determined, including the amount of debt borne by the split-off and the amount of debt borne by the other party’s spouse even if the split-off becomes insolvent, and even if such division-off results in the reduction of common property for the other party’s obligee, it shall be deemed that there is no special circumstance to view that division-off has been limited to 200 other property subject to division.

According to the statements in this case, due to the health class Nos. 4 and 5-1 of the evidence Nos. 5, it is recognized that the court below and the defendant AA received an application for confirmation of intention of divorce with the Chuncheon District Court on October 30, 2012. On the other hand, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the tax obligation of this case was incurred during the marriage period with the defendant AB during the marriage period and was borne by the formation of joint property of the married couple and thus, it is subject to liquidation. It is reasonable to deem that the tax obligation of this case is the obligation to be borne by the dueB during the marriage period with the defendant, and it is not possible to accept the claim for division of property of the defendant AA, since there is no remaining amount if the tax obligation of this case is deducted from KRW 000,000 of the total value of the defendant A and the defendant AA's whole property

In addition, Defendant AA asserts to the effect that it should consider the amount of money corresponding to the time it acquired the ownership of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to No. 3, and thus, it should be considered in the division of property. However, the written evidence No. 5-1 and No. 6 alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, Defendant AA’s assertion is without merit.

D. Determination as to the assertion by Defendant Jeong-CC

Defendant UCC asserts to the effect that the instant 4 sales contract does not constitute an act of deception, since each real estate listed in [Attachment List Nos. 6 through 8 was received by Defendant UCC as a substitute payment for borrowed money from AB.

However, according to the evidence No. 1-3 of the evidence No. 1-2 of this case, although it is recognized that Defendant ACC remitted the property to the due BB account several times from December 22, 2004, if the obligor’s property is insufficient to fully repay the obligor’s obligation, if the obligor provided the obligee’s only property to any specific obligee as payment in kind, then the obligee obtains satisfaction of the obligee’s claim prior to other creditors, while the joint security is reduced within the scope of the joint security, the obligee is placed in a more unfavorable position than the previous obligee’s interest. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the obligor’s act of offering the obligee’s only property to any one of the creditors as payment in kind constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the other creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da7873, Nov. 10, 2005). In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to deem that the obligor’s assertion that the obligor’s property is transferred to each of the DefendantCC as its principal obligor’s property under excess of its obligation.

Furthermore, Defendant UCC’s assertion that part of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 6(6) through (8) is not constituted a fraudulent act, but it is not sufficient to recognize the facts solely based on the evidence Nos. 7 and 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, Defendant UCC’s above assertion is without merit.

E. Sub-decision

Thus, both the instant donation contracts and the instant 4 sales contracts between EAB and the Defendant AAB and the instant 4 sales contracts between the Defendant AACC are deemed to be a fraudulent act. Accordingly, each of the revocation thereof shall be revoked, and as the restoration to the original state, the Defendant AA is obligated to implement each of the procedures for registration of cancellation of the instant 4 transfer registration.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.