The agreement on division of inherited property is a legal act for property rights, and the case where the joint security of the delinquent taxpayer has decreased due to this is a fraudulent act.

Since the agreement on division of inherited property is a juristic act aimed at property rights by its nature, it can be subject to the exercise of the right to revoke a fraudulent act. It is also applicable to a fraudulent act where the joint security against the general creditor has decreased by waiver of the right to the inherited property, while the debtor in excess of the debt already agreed on division of inherited

Article 406 of the Civil Act

2017 Ghana 118152 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AA

May 2, 2018

May 30, 2018

1. On June 26, 2015, the agreement on division of inherited property on June 26, 2015 with respect to 2/11 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between DB and the Defendant shall be revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure to transfer ownership registration for 2/11 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the High CourtB.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. DeB is a national tax liability of KRW 4,225,380, global income tax on February 28, 2010; KRW 19,738,650, global income tax on January 31, 2012; and KRW 4,866,950, global income tax on September 10, 2014, totaling KRW 28,860,980 (hereinafter “instant national tax liability”).

B. On April 17, 2015, the HighCC died on and after the death of April 17, 2015, and there are the heartB, heartD, heartE, network heartF (which is the heir and children of this GG, children of this case, and the High JJ and the High JJ) as its heir.

C. On June 26, 2015, the successors of the netCC, including the Defendant, made an agreement on the division of the inherited property (hereinafter “instant division agreement”) to the effect that the Defendant solely succeeds to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”), which is the inherited property of the netCC. Accordingly, on July 6, 2015, each registration for the transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant was completed.

D. At the time of the instant split-off consultation, the property of the HighB is a passenger car (4,050,000 won at a market price) and 3,500 shares of 00 stock companies (in December 5, 201, it is deemed dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act, and the appraised value cannot be calculated as the shares of the company deemed dissolved on December 5, 201, and is not the valuation value as the shares of the company whose liquidation is concluded on December 5, 2014). On the other hand, it is a state of excess of the obligation due to

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination

A. Establishment of fraudulent act

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s national tax claim against B/B is the preserved claim against the right to revoke the fraudulent act. In addition, the instant split-off agreement constitutes a fraudulent act that constitutes a case where B/B, which is an obligor in excess of the debt, renounced each of the shares of 2/11, the inheritance shares of each of the instant real estate, and thus falls short of the extent equivalent to the specific shares of B/B, and thus constitutes a fraudulent act that causes a decrease in common security against general creditors, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to have been presumed to have been the beneficiary.

B. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

(1) The Defendant asserts that, among the Plaintiff’s national tax claims against CB, KRW 4,225,380 as of February 28, 2010, and KRW 19,738,650 as of January 31, 2012, the statute of limitations expired, and that the remaining property exceeds KRW 4,86,950 as of January 31, 201 (or KRW 5 million as of the market price) and that CB was not in excess of its obligation at the time of the instant split-off agreement.

However, extinctive prescription of national tax claims is five years (Article 27(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). The extinctive prescription of each of the above national tax claims shall run from February 28, 2010 and January 31, 2012.

However, according to the evidence No. 8-1 and No. 2 of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 8-2, on October 18, 2010, the Plaintiff seized forest land No. 144 in Incheon, which was owned by BB as the right to preserve the national tax claim on October 18, 2010, and filed a request for delivery on December 11, 2012 and January 14, 2014 in the public sale procedure for the said forest land. According to the above facts, the extinctive prescription of each national tax claim was interrupted by the above seizure and request for delivery, which is the ground for suspending the extinctive prescription of national tax claim (Article 28(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes), and the above seizure was resumed after January 28, 2014 (Article 28(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes), and the lawsuit in this case was filed on May 30, 2017 without the lapse of five years from the above claim by the Defendant.

She also asserts that the division agreement in this case was an act of status or inherited from the inheritee retroactively at the time of commencement of the inheritance according to the division agreement in this case, and it does not take over the inheritance shares from B, so it does not constitute a revocation of a fraudulent act.

However, the agreement on the division of inherited property becomes final and conclusive with respect to inherited property which has been temporarily owned by the co-inheritors upon commencement of inheritance as a sole ownership of each inheritor or as a new co-ownership relationship, and thus becomes the object of property rights in its nature, and thus, it can be subject to the exercise of the right to revoke a fraudulent act. Meanwhile, barring any special circumstance, the debtor's act of selling real estate, which is one of his/her sole property, and replacing it with money which is easy to consume or transferring it to another person without compensation, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring any special circumstance. Thus, even in cases where a debtor in excess of his/her obligation already renounced his/her right to the inherited property while giving up his/her right to the inherited property upon consultation on the division of inherited property, thereby falling under a fraudulent act against the creditor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29

Finally, the defendant asserts that he was a bona fide beneficiary that he acquired the real estate of this case at his own effort and cost, reflecting the circumstances in which other inheritors did not have contributed to the formation of their property, and that he was a bona fide beneficiary.

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, although a creditor has the burden of proving the debtor's bad faith, the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is not a creditor, but is responsible to prove the fact that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is a bad faith. In a case where the debtor's act of disposal of property constitutes a fraudulent act, if the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is recognized as acting in good faith at the time of the fraudulent act or the preceding act, it shall be based on objective and reasonable evidence, etc., and it shall not be readily concluded that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser was acting in good faith at the time of the fraudulent act or the subsequent purchase (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da237192, Jun. 11, 2015).

In light of the financial status of the HighB and the relationship between the trialB and the defendant as seen earlier in the instant case, the evidence submitted by the defendant, such as testimony of witnesses Kim Jong-soo, and the deep mine alone, alone, is insufficient to cover the presumption of bad faith by the defendant, who is the beneficiary of the said fraudulent act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it as the good faith. The defendant's assertion is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, with respect to each share of 2/11, which is equivalent to the shares of the inheritance of the EnterpriseB among each of the instant real estate between the AreaB and the Defendant, the division agreement of this case shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant shall be obliged to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership for each share of 2/11 out of each of the instant real estate to the AreaB to restore the original state to its original state.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the claims of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting all of them.