Revocation of Fraudulent Act

disposal of the only real estate under the sole obligation of capital gains tax constitutes a fraudulent act

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

2015 Ghana 11222

Korea

KimA

December 01, 201

December 15, 2016

1. As to the answer of OO on the surface of the Yeong-si, Tak-si.

A. Revocation of a gift agreement concluded on December 24, 2014 between the Defendant and the PartyB

B. On December 31, 2014, the Defendant followed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed as of December 31, 2014 by the Daegu District Court Daegu District Court and its Daegu District Court and its racing support, etc.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination

On Apr. 4, 2011, JungB notified the Plaintiff to pay capital gains tax of 107,209,670 won until December 31, 2014 on December 1, 2014 because he/she did not report capital gains tax after he/she transferred the OOO shop in Yong-dong, Seocheon-si, Sung-dong, and Sung-dong, and he/she did not report capital gains tax. The amount of YB’s arrears around April 27, 2015, which was the time when the lawsuit was filed in this case, was 112,98,980 won including principal tax and additional charges, and YB did not have any real estate property registered in addition to the purport of OB, including Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, and Daegu District Court, which received on Dec. 31, 2014, and each of the above real estate property was not registered for transfer of ownership among the Defendant.

According to the above facts, it is presumed that the reduction of liability property for the general creditors by concluding a donation contract with the defendant and disposing of only the real estate including the real estate in this case with the defendant under the condition that Jung bears the obligation of capital gains tax on the plaintiff constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditors, and in this case, the defendant's bad faith as the beneficiary is presumed. Therefore, as the plaintiff seeks within the scope of the preserved claim, the gift contract concluded between Jung and the defendant regarding the real estate in this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant must implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration for the real estate

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the burden of litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff and the defendant according to Articles 99 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act in light of the progress of the lawsuit in this case. It is so decided as per Disposition.