(A) The legal act that the delinquent taxpayer donated to the defendant cannot be viewed as a fraudulent act because there is no proof that it is not a fraudulent act by the defendant.

It is reasonable to regard the delinquent taxpayer and the defendant as fraudulent act in the absence of the defendant's proof that his bad faith resulted in not being able to secure the claim against the plaintiff who is the creditor, due to his bad faith.

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

Suwon District Court 2015Kadan101717 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

LAA

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

May 13, 2015

1. (a) On September 1, 2014, the contract of donation concluded on September 1, 2014 between the Defendant and the leastB regarding each real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked;

B. The Defendant shall implement the procedure for each registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on September 1, 2014 by the Seoul Southern District Court’s Yeongdeungpo District Court’s receipt of No. 37063 on the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1, and the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table with respect to the Chuncheon District Court’s registration and completed on September 2, 2014 as the receipt No. 42356.

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

Cheong-gu Office

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;

On August 31, 2014, the director of the Namyang District Tax Office under the Plaintiff notified Nonparty B of the first payment of capital gains tax on August 31, 2014 to Nonparty 1, but did not pay the amount of arrears up to the day of the lawsuit, the amount of arrears became a total of 103,258,120 won including additional dues.

Table 1: The amount of national taxes in arrears as of November 2014, 2014

* In case of a change in the amount of delinquent tax by the date of the institution of the lawsuit, the re-preparation network

Sub-Items :

E =

Liability for Tax Payment

Date of establishment

First payment period

Notice Amount

(unit: source)

Amount in arrears

(unit: won)

Transfer Income Tax

2012

December 31, 2012

2014.08.31

9,096,795

103,258,120

Consolidateds

103,258,120

2. Relationship between parties;

The plaintiff is the person with a tax claim against the highestB, and the defendant lowestA has the honor to the highestB (see, e.g., National Tax Service's consolidated certification system-friendly information inquiry).

3. The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

A. The “legal act detrimental to a creditor” means a juristic act that causes a decrease in the debtor’s assets due to the act of disposing of the debtor’s assets, thereby making it impossible to fully satisfy the creditor’s claims due to the reduction of the debtor’s assets, or the lack of joint security already in the state of shortage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da6808, Apr. 29, 2005; 201Da82360, Feb. 23, 2012).

(b)the bestB’s fraudulent act;

1) The existence of a gift contract as an act of reducing liability property

Non-party B shall enter into a sales contract to transfer the real estate of this case to the O and the KR Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "transfer real estate of this case") of KNdo N-si J-Dong 5-2 14606m2m2 (hereinafter referred to as "the transfer real estate of this case"), and upon completing the registration of transfer of ownership on October 11, 2012 and on December 21, 2012, the director of the Nam-ju District Tax Office notified the defendant of the registration office of the transfer of the transfer real estate of 200 m20 m206m2 (hereinafter referred to as "the transfer real estate of this case") on August 31, 2013 as the 30 m20 m20 m20 m26 m20 m26 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m210 m210 m2.

(c) The intention of the largestB to understand;

1) The obligor’s intent, which is a subjective element of a fraudulent act, refers to recognizing that there is a shortage of common security of the claim, and it does not need to harm or intend to harm the obligee. In the event that the obligor’s donated obligation is included in a negative property and thus his/her donated obligation is omitted in excess of the obligation, it is presumed that the obligor’s intent is presumed at the time of the gift act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da41875, Apr. 24, 2001; 2011Da82360, Feb. 23, 2012).

2) On September 1, 2014, and September 2, 2014, the gift of this case, which is the property remaining after the receipt of the notice of pre-announcement of capital gains tax and the notice, shall be deemed to have been donated to the Defendant, who is his child, and thus, the Plaintiff at the time of donation shall be deemed to have been aware of (see subparagraph A(4)).

4. Bad faith of the defendant

It is reasonable to view that the Defendant was aware of the fact that it was a fraudulent act concluded with the knowledge that at the time of donation of the instant real estate from the least BB, such donation would prejudice the taxation right holder to be exempted from disposition for arrears such as subsequent seizure in accordance with the notice of capital gains tax, and that the hB’s intent to harm the taxation right holder.

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

On November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff was guilty of evading disposition on default, and as a result, inspected the copy of the registry of the instant real estate and the gathering of personal information related to him/her on November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that B donated the instant real estate to the Defendant who is the Plaintiff (see evidence 1, e.g., evidence 1, e., evidence 2).

6. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the contract of donation dated September 1, 2014 and September 2, 2014, which was made between the non-party lowestB and the defendant, was concluded with the knowledge that it would prejudice the taxation right holder to be exempted from the disposition of arrears, such as seizure according to national taxes in arrears under the attached Table 1, which was imposed by the NN head of the National Tax Collection Office, and the defendant also knew of the fact. Thus, the defendant sought revocation of the contract of donation under Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 406 of the Civil Act, and by restoring the original state to the original state, the defendant made a claim to recover the ownership in the name of the non-party lowestB by implementing the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration under the name of the defendant, which was made with respect