It constitutes a fraudulent act by transferring real estate to a partner who intends to be exempted from disposition on default, such as seizure.

The act of transferring real estate to a partner with the knowledge that the value-added tax would incur additional value-added tax in arrears and the tax authority seized the real estate, constitutes a fraudulent act by entering into a contract with the knowledge that the transfer of the real estate to the partner would be exempted from the disposition on default.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Ghana 10722 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

right XX

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

October 25, 2012

1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. On November 18, 2010 between the Defendant and the competent A, the reservation to trade concluded on November 18, 201, and the sales contract concluded on September 29, 201, respectively;

B. On November 18, 2010, the Defendant shall implement the procedure for the cancellation of each registration of transfer of ownership completed under No. 47361 on October 4, 201 with respect to the registration of the provisional registration of the claim for transfer of ownership, which was completed by the Suwon District Court Leecheon District Court Lee, the registry office, and the provisional registration of the claim for transfer of ownership.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against 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. Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act;

Grounds of Claim

1. As to the non-party A’s default on payment and the Plaintiff’s establishment of the preserved claim (tax claim)

(a) Details of imposition of the national taxes and details of arrears;

The head of the Chungcheong District Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s jurisdiction notified Non-Party A of the value-added tax and the labor income tax for the workplace of the non-party 2010 and 2011 for the 2010 and 2011, but the non-party 6 cases of value-added tax, 000, 3 cases of earned income tax and 000 won are in arrears due to the non-party 2's failure to pay the national tax for the non-party 2 cases of global income tax and 2011 for the year 2010 and 2011 for the non-party 2 cases of global income tax due to the non-party 2 case of the non-party 2 case of the global income tax and 000 won for the capital gains tax due to the non-party 2's failure to pay the national tax for the 000 won as of the filing date of the lawsuit (see attached Form 2.

(b) Basic date for establishing tax claims;

Tax claims are legally established when the taxation requirements prescribed by tax-related Acts are met, and income tax and value-added tax are established when the taxable period expires pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and income tax collected at source is paid pursuant to Article 21(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the value-added tax for the preliminary return period for interim prepayment is established when the interim prepayment period or preliminary return period expires pursuant to Article 21(2)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay for the final return of value-added tax for January 30, 2010 among the Plaintiff’s tax claims against Non-Party A, the date on which the obligation to pay taxes for the final return of value-added tax for the first half of 2010 was established on September 30, 2010 and the date on which the preliminary return of value-added tax for the second half of 2010 was made on September 30, 2010.

In addition, "the claim is already established at the time of fraudulent act, there is a high probability that the claim will be established in the near future, and where the claim has been established in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim for the obligee's right of revocation." The date when the obligation to pay the final return of value-added tax for the second period of 2010 of the 2010 portion of the 2010 portion of the 2nd portion of the 2nd portion of the 2nd portion of the 2010th portion of the 2nd portion of the 2010th portion of the 2010 portion of the 2nd portion of the 2nd portion of the 2010th portion of the 2010 portion of the 2nd portion of the 2nd portion of the 2010th portion of the 2nd portion of the 2010 portion of the 2nd portion of the 2nd portion of the 2010 portion of the 2nd portion of the 2010th portion

(See Court Decisions 95Da27905 delivered on November 28, 1995 and Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37821 delivered on March 23, 2001

2 With respect to the fraudulent act and excess of obligations of Nonparty A:

A. The Nonparty’s fraudulent act by Nonparty A

On November 18, 2010 on the ground of the promise to sell and purchase the real estate set forth in Appendix 1 through 2, 2010 on November 18, 201, Suwon District Court received Leecheon District Court’s receipt of registration office, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on October 04, 201 on the ground of sale on October 29, 201, Suwon District Court’s receipt of registration office No. 47361, Suwon District Court’s receipt of registration office No. 47361, Oct. 29, 201.

(see Evidence A 1 to 3)

(b) Debt excess;

Examining whether the debt exceeds the debt as of November 18, 2010, which is the date of the fraudulent act, the active value of property is KRW 000, the passive value of property is KRW 000, and it has been in a state where satisfaction of the tax claim has been obtained due to the excess of the debt of KRW 000, and as of the date of the lawsuit, the excess of the debt continues.

(See 13) "Review of excess of obligations at the time of fraudulent act"

3. As to the deceased's will

The sales tax invoice was issued from July to December 2010 in the status of Non-Party A’s failure to pay the amount of value-added tax for the first year of 2010 and the estimated amount of value-added tax for the second year of 2010. As such, on November 18, 2010, upon knowing that the final return of value-added tax for the second year of 2010 was also made, the pre-sale registration was made to the Defendant on November 18, 2010. On September 29, 2011, the Chungcheong Tax Office attached the real estate to the Defendant and transferred the said real estate to the Defendant on September 29, 201. Accordingly, the Defendant was also aware of the fact that the Plaintiff, a tax claim, was unable to obtain satisfaction of the tax claim (see evidence A).

4. On the day when he became aware of the cause of revocation of the fraudulent act

As above, the Plaintiff became aware of the speculative acts conducted between A and the Defendant, which were the delinquent taxpayer, in the course of identifying the relationship between the delinquent taxpayer and the Defendant in order to conduct an investigation on tracking the arrears on June 4, 2012.

5. Return of originals;

The reservation and transfer contract made between the non-party A and the defendant shall be revoked, and the defendant has the obligation to implement the procedure for the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer and the cancellation registration of the right to claim ownership transfer as to the real estate listed in the 1 and 2 attached Table Ma1 as the restoration to its original state. (See the evidence No. 1 to 3)

6. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the reservation and transfer contract for real estate in the attached Forms 1 and 2, which were made between the non-party A and the defendant, was concluded with the knowledge that the taxpayer would be exempted from the disposition of delinquent national taxes due to the default of national taxes imposed by the head of the Chungcheong District Tax Office and the head of the Leecheon Tax Office. In addition, the defendant was aware of the fact that the non-party A was a partner of the non-party A.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer and the cancellation registration of the ownership transfer registration with respect to the real estate listed 1, 2, as the restoration to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant has the obligation to make a claim for cancellation of the objection under Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 416 of the Civil Act.