Transfer of real estate to a person with a special relationship at the commencement of tax investigation

The act of transferring the ownership of the instant real property to the Defendant who is a specially related person upon commencement of the tax investigation is a fraudulent act detrimental to the taxation right holder.

1. The sales contract concluded on September 15, 2006 and the sales contract concluded on October 16, 2006 between the defendant and Lee ○○ with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and all of the sales contracts concluded on October 16, 2006 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate

2. The defendant will implement the procedure to cancel the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer, which was completed on October 17, 2006 by the ○○ District Court ○○○ registry office ○○ with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list 1 to ○○○.

3. The defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 61619 on October 17, 2006, which was completed under No. 61619, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 through 8 to ○○○ District Court.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

Grounds of Claim

1. Formation of tax claims;

A. As a result of the tax investigation by the ○○○○○ Company, the head office of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was operated by the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the sales omission amount was confirmed to be KRW 629,831,00 in the first period of 203 through 2006. On November 14, 2006, the sales omission data from the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was collected on the basis of the report (Evidence No. 1), and on the basis of this, KRW 79,932,150 in the sales omission data from the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on March 31, 2007, with global income tax imposed KRW 429,836,420 on May 31, 207.207.

B. The tax claim amount against the non-party ○○ notified by the head of ○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff is as follows.

(Amount-unit: Won)

Taxation Period

Items of Taxation

Date of Notice

Deadline for payment

Notice Tax Amount

Liability for Tax Payment

Time of establishment

Total

307,768,570

1, 2003

Value-added Tax

9, 2007

31, 2007

9,363,270

6.30

203

Value-added Tax

9, 2007

31, 2007

10,038,100

December 31, 2003

1, 2004

Value-added Tax

9, 2007

31, 2007

11,533,450

6.6.30

204 Second Period

Value-added Tax

9, 2007

31, 2007

14,489,990

December 31, 2004

1, 2005

Value-added Tax

9, 2007

31, 2007

11,986,920

June 30, 2005

Second Period, 2005

Value-added Tax

9, 2007

31, 2007

11,119,750

December 31, 2005

1, 2006

Value-added Tax

9, 2007

31, 2007

10,655,400

June 30, 2006

Second Period, 2006

Value-added Tax

9, 2007

31, 2007

745,270

December 31, 2006

For the 2003 Reversion

Global Income Tax

May 11, 2007

May 31, 2007

56,011,710

December 31, 2003

For the 2004 Reversion

Global Income Tax

May 11, 2007

May 31, 2007

82,836,880

December 31, 2004

For the 2005 Reversion

Global Income Tax

May 11, 2007

May 31, 2007

68,093,800

December 31, 2005

For the 2006 Reversion

Global Income Tax

August 9, 2007

August 31, 2007

2,894,030

December 31, 2006

- The amount of tax claims against the non-party ○○○ by the Plaintiff-affiliated director of the tax office shall be at least KRW 335,015,330, including the additional dues as of the filing date.

2. Fraudulent act;

After the tax investigation (inspection period: from August 16, 2006 to September 25, 2006) of the ○○ District Tax Office on the ○○ Company, the head office of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was operated by Nonparty ○○○○○, started, the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) which was the only property of the principal, was anticipated in advance to be notified of the amount of taxes returned since the omitted sales amount was confirmed, and was transferred to the Defendant ○○○○ on October 17, 2006 with the receipt number No. 46198 (Evidence 14) on September 15, 2006 on the registration number of the ○○ District Court and receipt number No. 61619 (Evidence 15) on October 16, 2006.

This is to avoid the disposition on default by deviating from the responsible property on purpose, and it is not possible to fully pay the national taxes due to the lack of other self-sufficiency except the property, which constitutes the requirement for revocation of clearly fraudulent act under Article 30 of the National Tax Collection

3. The intention of speculation; and

A. The intention of the non-party delinquent taxpayer Lee ○○

- The maximum ○○○ and 165 others (including the delinquent taxpayers) are the business owners operating ○○ Store. They were aware of the fact that the head office of ○○○○ was investigated between September 16, 2006 and September 25, 2006.

In addition, they received a written application from the ○○ Regional Tax Office on October 10, 2006, which received a written application from the 230 individual franchise stores that were incurred as a result of subsequent tax investigation on the ○○○ Head Office (Evidence A 16).

- In light of the contents of paragraph 3 of the application, there is a notification from the head office to prepare for the additional amount of value-added tax and global income tax for each member store as a result of the completion of the tax investigation of the main company.

- After the completion of the tax investigation on the head office, Nonparty ○○ was anticipated to have a notice of the determination of value-added tax and global income tax on the amount omitted in sales at the near future’s place of business, and if the instant real estate, which is its primary property, continues to be owned under his own name, it would be subject to the execution of a disposition on default, such as seizure, based on the future tax claim. However, for the purpose of evading this, Nonparty ○○ transferred its ownership on October 17, 2006 to the Defendant, who is a relative resident, and Nonparty ○○ was aware at the time of transferring the ownership of the instant

B. Non-party ○○ Insolvent

It is assumed that Nonparty ○○ had no other property at the time of transferring the instant real estate to the Defendant, and thus, was in insolvent.

4. Bad faith of the defendant

The defendant is the pro-Japanese (Evidence A No. 17) of Lee ○○, and the non-party Lee ○ did not have any other property except the real estate in this case. At the time of transfer or acquisition of the real estate in this case with the non-party Lee ○, the defendant should be deemed to have known the fact that the acquisition of the real estate in this case was prejudicial to the plaintiff who was a tax claim and the intention of the

5. The date on which he becomes aware of a fraudulent act;

The fraudulent act of this case was known of the transfer or acquisition of the real estate of this case while it was reviewed in order to secure a tax claim on April 11, 2007 by printing out the "data sheet on the Status of Property, etc. of Delinquent Taxpayers" (Evidence A No. 18) in order to secure a tax claim on March 31, 2007.

7. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the act of transfer of the instant real estate by Nonparty ○○ constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, and the Defendant acquired the instant real estate with the knowledge of such fact, as so stated in the purport of the claim, and thus, I requested for the cancellation of each registration of transfer of ownership, which was made in the name of the Defendant to cancel the sales contract as stated in the purport

Attached List

1. The display of one building;

○○ also indicated ○○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, with the indication of the building with the first and second floors

2nd floor of reinforced concrete slive roof

Neighborhood Facilities

7.23 square meters per floor.

2nd floor 75.87 square meters

Indication of land which is the object of site ownership

○○ also ○○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○-dong 1857 square meters wide.

Site Ownership: Ownership

Site ownership ratio: 1320/18570

2. A quarter of the shares of co-owners of 436 square meters in ○○○-ri, ○○○-ri, ○○○-ri, and 436 square meters.

3. A quarter of the shares of co-owners of 400 square meters in ○○○-ri, ○○○-ri, ○○○-ri, and 403 square meters.

4. 1/4 of the co-owners of 241 square meters in a field of ○○○-ri, ○○○-ri, ○○-ri, ○○-gun.

5. 1/4 of co-owners of 00 square meters in 00 ○○-ri, 00 ○○-ri, 96 square meters in a field.

6. A quarter of the shares of co-owners of 377 square meters in ○○○-ri, ○○○-ri, ○○○-ri, 000 square meters.

7. 1/4 of the shares of co-owners of 370 square meters prior to ○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○.

8. 1/4 of the shares of co-owners of 520 square meters prior to ○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○.

More than