The act of donation of real estate constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor, and thus, the defendants are obligated to compensate for the equivalent value and restore the property to its original state.

As a delinquent taxpayer is in excess of his/her obligation due to tax liability, etc., the transfer of ownership by concluding a donation contract with the Defendants on the instant real estate constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor, and thus, should be revoked. The Defendants are obliged to perform restitution and compensation for value arising from a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2018 Ghana7732 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

ParkA and one other

August 28, 2019

October 16, 2019

1. The gift agreement concluded on May 25, 2017 between Defendant ParkA and Park (6*****-1*******) is revoked, respectively.

2. Defendant Park A shall:

(a) For each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1,** district court** on May 25, 2017, received on May 25, 2017,******, 1**** followed followed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer;

B. The Plaintiff shall pay 10,615,098 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. The contract of donation concluded on May 25, 2017 between Defendant LB and Park shall be revoked.

4. Defendant LB shall comply with the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed as** district court** on May 25, 2017, received on May 25, 2017,****** on the part of Park.

5. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Park Park Jong-young, the payment deadline of which was February 28, 2017, was KRW 1,771,357,110 of global income tax for the year 2016.

B. Around May 25, 2017, gambling donated each of the real estate listed in the Schedule 1 and 2 to the Defendant Park Jae-in, who is the public official, and each of the real estate listed in the attached Table 3 to the Defendant ChoiB, who is the public official (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendants on the same day.

C. Around March 14, 2018, Defendant Park Jong-A sold each real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 to ParkCC, and completed the registration of ownership transfer around April 20, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition]

○ Defendant ParkA: Confession (Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

LB: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against Defendant Park Jong-A

(a) Description of the claim;

The donation of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2 to Defendant Gamba constitutes a fraudulent act. Therefore, the said donation contract is revoked, and the return of originals to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1, and compensation for value is sought for each real estate listed in the separate sheet 2, in which it is impossible to return originals due to disposal to ParkCC.

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Claim against Defendant LB

(a) Occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;

According to the above facts, the plaintiff was holding a national tax claim prior to the gift contract of this case with respect to gambling, which becomes a preserved claim of creditor's right of revocation.

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

In light of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 9 (including additional numbers), it can be acknowledged that at the time of the donation contract of this case, gambling had 23 real estate including real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as active property, and its value constitutes approximately KRW 2,143,618,052 in total when the officially announced value is based on the officially announced value. On the other hand, even if a claim for a small property is limited to a taxation claim, KRW 4,281,621,075 in total, and the loan No. 296,625,896 in relation to AD, and the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security established on the real estate reaches KRW 3,424,73,639 in total, approximately KRW 8,02,980,610 in total.

Therefore, gambling is deemed to have been in excess of the obligation at the time of the instant donation contract. In such a situation, it is reasonable to view that gambling’s donation of each real estate listed in the separate list No. 3 to Defendant LB was a fraudulent act based on the intention of piracy. In addition, as long as the intent of persecution, which is an obligor, is recognized, Defendant BB’s bad faith, the beneficiary, is presumed.

As to this, Defendant LB argues that each real estate listed in the separate sheet 3 is the ownership of the largest EE and merely nominal trust to Park, and that the donation does not constitute a fraudulent act detrimental to Park’s creditors, but it cannot be accepted as there is no evidence supporting the assertion.

(c) Revocation of fraudulent act;

Therefore, this case’s donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration for each real estate listed in the attached Table 3 to Park Park as a result of restitution following the revocation of fraudulent act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be accepted in its entirety on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.