in excess of debt, the act of donation of real estate to the spouse constitutes a fraudulent act.

in excess of debt, the act of donation of real estate to the spouse constitutes a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration of Fraudulent Act

2017 Ghana 62905 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

NewA

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

oly 2018.13

1. The contract of donation concluded on May 2, 2016 between the Defendant and the UB on each real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall make available to the relevantB.

A. On May 19, 2016, with respect to the real property listed in attached list No. 1, CC District Court DD Registry, 2016

completed by heading 00000;

B. On May 2016, 2016, with respect to the real estate stated in paragraph 2 of the attached list,CC District Court DD registry office

19. completed under No. 00000 of the receipt:

The procedure for the cancellation registration of each transfer of ownership shall be implemented.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claim;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

2. Applicable provisions;

Judgment without Oral Pleading (Articles 208(3)1 and 257(1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

Cheongwon of the Gu

1. Basic facts

(a) Circumstances of taxation;

1) On September 19, 2014, Nonparty UB (hereinafter referred to as “B”) (hereinafter referred to as “EB”) transferred KRW 00,000,000 on September 19, 2014, and paid KRW 00,00,00,000 on the transfer of non-party UB (hereinafter referred to as “ Gyeonggi-do**,**,******-*****”) other real estate, and notified the EE head of tax office of KRW 00,000 on February 28, 2015, but did not pay it

2) On December 21, 2015, the EE director of the tax office notified the transfer income tax of KRW 00,000,000 as the payment period on May 31, 2016, by transferring and paying without reporting the real estate other than Gyeonggi-do*** Dong****-*-*-**-*) to KRW 00,00,000,000 for the payment period on June 30, 2016 (a written resolution of capital gains tax decision on evidence 1). However, the EE director was notified of KRW 00,000,000 for the payment period on June 30, 2016,

3) The BB is delinquent in total of three items, including additional dues, as of the date of the filing of the action, and KRW 330,170,820 (hereinafter referred to as “instant taxation claims”), and its details are as listed below (A).

(b) The details of the real estate donation by the BB;

B. On May 2, 2016, on the grounds of the gift on May 2, 2016, the UB made the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant pursuant to HS District EE Registry No. 0000 and No. 0000 of the receipt on May 19, 2016 (the copy of the register of the instant real estate No. 3).

(c) Relationship between the parties;

New AA is the spouse of the BB, and the Plaintiff is the spouse of the BB, and the Plaintiff has the status of national tax claim (the family relation certificate No. 4).

2. Formation of preserved claims;

The notice date of the instant taxation claim against BB may be the preserved claim of the right to cancel the fraudulent act in accordance with the following legal principles regarding the establishment of the preserved claim after the date of the fraudulent act ( May 2, 2016) or after the date of the establishment of the preserved claim.

It is essential that a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation was created prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle. However, at the time of the fraudulent act, there is a high probability of the existence of a legal relationship which is the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim is to be established in the near future in the near future, and where a claim has been created as a claim is realized in the near future, such claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da53704, Feb. 25, 2000).

In this case, income tax on the transfer margin of assets is established abstractly on the last day of the month (the month to which the date of the transfer of assets belongs) in which the amount that serves as the tax base occurs, and according to the above legal principles, the pertinent taxation claim in this case is likely to cause the pertinent national tax because the legal relations that are already subject to taxation requirements have been formed before May 2, 2016, which is a fraudulent act, and on the basis, the pertinent national tax was notified of real national tax, so there is no defect that the pertinent national tax in this case becomes the preserved claim.

3. Occurrence of fraudulent act;

In the event that the Plaintiff’s preserved claim was established on May 2, 2016, the UB made the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate under the name of the Defendant on the ground of donation on May 2, 2016.

4. Acknowledgement of a fraudulent act;

As such, the fact that the DaiB donated the real estate to the Defendant was collected a certified copy of the real estate register in the process of tracking the person suspected of evading the disposition of arrears by the UB, and that the UBB issued on November 21, 2017 by the Family Relations Certification Board, etc., but he became aware of the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Defendant with respect to the real estate in excess of the debt.

5. Excess of debts.

“Legal act detrimental to a creditor, which is the requirement for creditor’s right of revocation, refers to a juristic act that causes a decrease in debtor’s assets due to the act of disposing of debtor’s assets and makes it impossible to fully satisfy the creditor’s claims by means of a decrease in the debtor’s assets, or a lack of joint security already available to the extent that the creditor’s claims cannot be fully satisfied. As such, such fraudulent act may be established not only in cases where the debtor has already been in excess of his/her obligations prior to the disposal of assets, but also in cases where the debtor has not been in excess of his/her obligations due to an act of disposal in question, such as a summary and a donation of money (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da6808, Apr. 29, 2005; 201Da

At the time of the fraudulent act of this case, I are as follows.

Therefore, the UB made the gift of the real estate of this case to the Defendant on May 2, 2016 and deepens its excess of debt.(A's copy of the certificate of real estate of this case, A's copy of the auction case of evidence No. 6, A's copy of the individual house of this case, A's copy of the inquiry of individual house of this case, A's copy of the individual land of this case, A's copy of the inquiry screen of individual land No. 8, A's copy, A's

6. The intention of an injury.

BB’s act of donation of the instant real estate on May 2, 2016, when the Plaintiff was liable to pay capital gains tax on the transfer of the instant real estate, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is the obligee, and at the same time, it is presumed that the Defendant’s intention is de facto presumed.

7. Bad faith of the defendant

Since the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed, the beneficiary has the burden of proof to the beneficiary that the beneficiary was unaware of the fraudulent act. The defendant is the spouse of the UBB, who is the spouse of the UBB, is in excess of the BB's debt at the time of the gift contract in this case, the fact that the act of the gift contract in this case deepens the excess of the BB's debt and that the act of the gift contract in this case is a fraudulent act to evade tax obligations,

8. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the gift contract on the real estate in this case between the BB and the Defendant was concluded with the knowledge that it would prejudice the taxation right holder in order to be exempted from the disposition on default of national taxes imposed by the Director of theCC, and thus, the Defendant also knew of the fact. Therefore, the Defendant sought revocation of the objection under Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 406 of the Civil Act, and the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for the cancellation of registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendant, which was made with respect to the real estate in this case, by restitution to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant