a donation of real estate in excess of debt constitutes a fraudulent act.

In excess of debt, only a donation of real estate to a child constitutes a fraudulent act and is subject to a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act.

2014 Ghana 211036 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

The AA

July 22, 2014

August 12, 2014

1. The contract of donation on February 16, 2012 between Nonparty B(OO-OOOOO) and Defendant AA is revoked.

2. Defendant Jeong-A shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on February 16, 2012 with the receipt of No. 1937, such as the Young-ju District Court’s Young-dong Branch Branch, with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list,

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by 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 by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

Cheongwon of the Gu

1. Basic facts

(a) Circumstances of taxation;

The director of the North Incheon District Tax Office under the Plaintiff notified the value-added tax and global income tax for the year 201, which was not reported and paid without filing, with respect to the business that had been operated by food by unregistered business operators of ParkB B's business, as follows, but did not pay it by the day of the filing of the lawsuit (see the decision on value-added tax for 1 to 2 of the evidence No. 1 and the decision on global income tax for evidence No.

(unit: Won)

Items of Taxation

Reversion

Date of establishment of tax liability;

Deadline for payment

Notice Tax Amount

Amount in arrears

Jinay

Value-added Tax

2011.1

oly 2011.30

2012.30

OOO

OOO

Value-added Tax

2011.2

December 31, 201

2012.30

OOO

OOO

Global Income Tax

2011

December 31, 201

8.31.20

OOO

OOO

guidance.

OOO

OOO

B. Establishment of preserved claims

It is essential that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle. However, at the time of such fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of a claim, and there is high probability about the establishment of a claim in the near future based on such legal relationship, and in cases where a claim has been realized in the near future and its probability has been realized, such claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99DaOOO, Feb. 25,

In the instant case, value-added tax and global income tax are established at the end of the taxable period (see Article 21(1)2 and 7 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). As such, ParkB’s liability to pay taxes to the Plaintiff was established abstractly on June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2011, which is the end of the taxable period of value-added tax and global income tax, and there was a high probability that ParkBB had already established the legal relationship that is the basis for establishing the claim. The tax claim of this case was determined based on the above basic legal relationship through the Plaintiff’s tax investigation, etc. in the near future. In fact, it was probable that the Plaintiff’s notice of taxation on February 15, 201 and notice of the Plaintiff’s prior notice of the tax payment to the Plaintiff on April 30, 2012, and thus, the Plaintiff’s notice of the tax claim of this case became final and conclusive on the pertinent tax claim of this case (see Article 3GB).

2. Occurrence of fraudulent act;

ParkB, as above, on February 16, 2012 when the Plaintiff’s preserved claim was established, “I, on the ground of the gift of the OOO head on February 16, 2012, Cheongju District Court, Young-dong Branch Branch, etc., received OO heading on February 16, 2012, I completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant Jung-A heading (see the copy of the register of real estate No. 4 of the evidence No. 4), and on March 3.

The fact that the ownership transfer registration has been made in the name of the defendant on the real estate of this case was conducted after the issuance of a family relation certificate on March 18, 2014 in order to review the current status of the property of Nonparty ParkB while analyzing the suspicion of property concealment by large-amount delinquent taxpayers (see subparagraph 5-1 to subparagraph 5-2, the current status list of the property of Nonparty ParkB, and the family relation certificate No.6).

4. Excess of debts;

On February 16, 2012, ParkB’s active property, which donated the instant real estate to the Defendant, was appraised as property on the date of the instant real estate’s reason for acquisition on September 25, 2008, and the amount of the national tax, which became the preserved claim for the instant fraudulent act, was transferred to the Defendant with the ownership over the instant real estate in excess of the liabilities, resulting in a state of insolvency by himself (see, e.g., a certified copy of the real estate register of No. 4-1 to 4-4, a certified copy of the evidence No. 5-2, and a list of the records of Nonparty ParkB’s property, etc.).

5. The intention of an injury.

ParkB is expected to be notified of value-added tax and global income tax, and it is assumed that on February 16, 2012, after the date of establishment of tax liability, the Plaintiff was aware that the instant real estate was completed the registration of ownership transfer due to donation to the Defendant (see the copy of the register of real estate No. 4-1 to 4).

6. Bad faith of the defendant

Since the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed, the beneficiary has the burden of proof to the beneficiary that the beneficiary was unaware of being a fraudulent act. The defendant is the child of ParkB, and the real estate of this case was made under the condition that the real estate of this case was not the only property of ParkBB with the property of ParkB and did not have any other property, and was aware of the fact that the act of this case's real estate donation contract of this case was a fraudulent act in order to avoid tax liability and to escape tax liability, and that ParkB's will to know the beneficiary's intention (see subparagraph

7. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the gift contract on the real estate in this case between ParkB and the defendant was concluded with the knowledge that it would prejudice the taxation right holder in order to be exempted from the disposition of default on national taxes imposed by the director of the tax office in arrears. Therefore, the defendant's objection is revoked pursuant to Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 406 of the Civil Act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation of registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the name of the defendant for the real estate in this case by restitution to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is obliged to recover ownership in the name of the above ParkB.