The legal relationship that forms the basis for the establishment of a claim for a fraudulent act lawsuit is widely included in quasi-legal relations, facts, etc. with the probability of establishing the claim.

A claim that may be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has already existed at the time of a fraudulent act, and there is a high probability that a claim would be established in the near future, based on the existing legal relations. In the near future, where a claim has been established by realizing the probability thereof in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Ghana 331 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

KimA

October 25, 2012

November 15, 2012

1. The contract of donation concluded on November 30, 2010 between the defendant and the non-party KimB is revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer, which was completed on December 1, 2010 by the receipt No. 23819, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to Nonparty KimB.

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

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. Grounds for recognition;

Judgment by deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Grounds of Claim

1. Existence of the preserved claim;

A. The Plaintiff’s taxation claims are as follows:

(The following table omitted):

On October 7, 2010, Non-Party KimB transferred OOO apartment No. 00,000, and reported capital gains tax at KRW 000/300 on April 29, 201 with the transfer value of KRW 000/300 on the apartment located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OOOOO apartment No. 00, Seoul, and Non-Party KimB did not pay capital gains tax. The head of a tax office of Jung-Eup under the jurisdiction of the Plaintiff (competent regional tax office): on September 05, 201, the head of a tax office of Jung-Eup under the jurisdiction of the Plaintiff (Seoul regional tax office) notified Non-Party KimB to pay capital gains tax of KRW 000 as the due date on September 30, 201, and thus, Non-Party KimB did not pay capital gains tax to the present day as described in the foregoing paragraph (1). The non-Party

B. Whether the taxation claim of this case constitutes a preserved claim

“Claims protected by obligee’s right of revocation shall be deemed, in principle, a fraudulent act.

However, it is highly probable that a claim is established in the near future, based on an existing legal relationship at the time of the fraudulent act. In fact, where a claim has been established due to the realization of the possibility in the near future, the claim can also be the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation, and the legal relationship which forms the basis for the establishment of the claim is not limited to the legal relationship under the agreement between the parties, but is widely included in quasi-legal relations or facts with the probability of the establishment of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001). / Supreme Court Decision 2002Da42957, Nov. 8, 2002; thus, in light of the above legal principles, the pertinent legal relationship was established after the expiration of the deadline for payment of September 30, 201, and the taxation claim of this case, which is established under the Act on 101,010.10.01.

2. Fraudulent act;

(a) Disposal of property;

On October 07, 2010, Non-party KimB concluded a donation contract on November 30, 2010 with the defendant KimA, a child, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 23819 on December 23, 2010 with the Jeonju District Court Branch of the Jeonju District Court (OOOO 000 OO apartment 000,000, and for the purpose of expecting and evading that high-amount of transfer income tax will occur on the apartment located in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as "the real property of this case"). The non-party KimB concluded the donation contract on December 30, 201 with the defendant KimB, who is the child, for the purpose of transferring and evading the apartment in the attached list (refer to the evidence No. 1-4, the copy of the registration).

(b) Failure to provide joint security;

1) The value of the instant real estate

The value of the instant real estate indicated in the attached list 1.0.00 square meters for the land No. 000,000,000 (436 square metersx070,000) in the attached list; 2.00,000 square meters for the land site No. 000,000,000 in the attached list; 3.00,000,000,000,000 won for the land in the Eup/Myeon/Dongan-gun, in the attached list; 4.00,000,000,000,000 won in the attached list; and 4.00,000,000,000,000 won (60,000 square meters) in the attached list, in the attached list, in the attached list (see, e.g., evidence No. 5-1 through 5,000,000).

2) Debt amount related to the instant real estate

No amount of debt of Nonparty KimB for the instant real estate at the time of November 30, 2010 shall be the same.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the non-party KimB reduced the liability property of KRW 000 on the ground of donation of the real estate in this case.

(c) Debt excess;

(i)affirmative property;

The active property as of November 30, 2010, which was the fraudulent act of Nonparty B KimB, can be seen from the National Tax Service’s computerized output (see summary inquiry by taxpayer No. 4). The active property other than the real property in this case is 000 won prior to the 000 OOri-si, Gyeonggi-do (see evidence No. 6-2, e.g., the copy of the register, and the officially announced land value).

2) Petty property

At the time of November 30, 2010, Nonparty KimB’s instant small property related to the instant case was KRW 000,000,000, the amount of the collateral security obligation of the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, which was secured prior to 000, the amount of the collateral security right to collateral security, the amount of KRW 000,000, and the Plaintiff’s tax claim amount of KRW 000,000,000, which was secured prior to 000. Therefore, this would result in the Plaintiff’s debt excess of KRW 00,000, which was deducted from positive property 00, less the negative property 00, and thus would not satisfy the claims of the general creditors, including the Plaintiff.

3. The doctor of the private will;

A. Bad faith of Nonparty KimB

The non-party KimB transferred the high-amount real estate on October 07, 2010, and reported the transfer income tax, but did not pay the transfer income tax, and later, the plaintiff was aware that the plaintiff would impose a high-amount tax claim and that the plaintiff donated the real estate listed in the attached list to defendant KimA. This would have known that the creditor, who is the plaintiff, could not obtain the satisfaction of the claim, would not be able to obtain the satisfaction of the claim. Accordingly, the non-party KimB was given the decreased liability property as well as the decreased liability property.

B. The defendant's bad faith

The defendant is the non-party KimB's child at the time of the donation contract for the real estate in this case, and is believed to have known the fact that the non-party KimB's act was a fraudulent act and that the plaintiff's claim is infringed. (See the family relation certificate No. 7)

4. Methods of reinstatement;

In light of the above fact, any real estate for which a donation contract on the real estate in this case and a transfer of ownership based thereon have been made is obliged to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant.

5. Conclusion;

Although KimB transferred high-amount real estate and reported the transfer income tax, it was known that all of the real estate was donated to the defendant KimB by his own person without paying the transfer income tax and the transfer of ownership due to such act was done with the knowledge that the transfer income tax was imposed and the defendant would prejudice the tax payer in order to be exempted from the disposition of default on payment due to delinquency in payment. As such, the defendant also knew the fact that he sought cancellation of the objection pursuant to Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 406 of the Civil Act, and the defendant KimA has a duty to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of transfer of ownership due to restitution to KimB on the real estate listed in the separate sheet.