Since the defaulted taxpayer made the gift of this case in excess of his liability, it constitutes a fraudulent act.

As at the time of donation of this case, since the delinquent taxpayer was in excess of his/her obligation, the donation of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, and since the defendant is the person of the delinquent taxpayer, he/she shall be deemed to have the intention of deception. Therefore, the contract of this case shall be revoked

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

2015 Ghana 111781 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

KimA

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

March 10, 2016

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

(a) cancel each gift agreement concluded on September 19, 2014 between the Defendant and BB (000-0000) and the Defendant, and:

B. On September 22, 2014, the Defendant shall comply with the procedures for registration of cancellation of each transfer of ownership, which was completed by the O district court OO registry office on September 22, 2014.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The relationship between the parties;

A. The relationship between the Plaintiff and Nonparty B B

The director-general of the Plaintiff’s Otax office conducted an individual consolidated investigation on the O's O's O'B operated from March 20, 2014 to May 22, 2014; the non-payment of value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax for the period from 2008 to 2012 were 394,206,396 Plaintiff as the payment period from August 31, 2014; the part of the objection as a result was accepted and reviewed and corrected to 241,113,712 won as of February 9, 2015; while the non-payment of value-added tax was in arrears, value-added tax was 175,505,720 won as of September 24, 2015; and the details thereof were 108,660,460 won as of the date of arrears; and the detailed list No. 1 and No. 3 of No. 1,2015 were as follows.

Schedule 1:The amount of national taxes in arrears as of the date of the institution of the BB action.

(unit: won)

Items of Taxation

Reversion

Liability for Tax Payment

gender; and

Payment

Time Limit

Current arrears

Jurisdiction

Total

Principal Tax

Additional Dues

Global Income Tax

2011

December 31, 201

2014.08.31

6,204,850

5,179,330

1,025,520

O

Global Income Tax

2012

December 31, 2012

2014.08.31

31,170,380

26,018,690

5,151,690

O

Global Income Tax

2010

December 31, 2010

2014.08.31

14,864,730

12,408,030

2,456,700

O

Global Income Tax

209

December 31, 2009

2014.08.31

27,084,420

2,608,070

4,476,350

O

Global Income Tax

208

December 31, 2008

2014.08.31

30,435,490

25,405,300

5,030,190

O

109,759,870

91,619,420

18,140,450

B. The relationship between the delinquent and the defendant

1) The defendant is the status of the delinquent taxpayer (Article 4 of the Family Register No. 4 of the Republic of Korea)

2) On September 19, 2014, the Defendant entered into a donation contract with the delinquent taxpayer on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each of the real estate in this case"), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 22, 2014 (Evidence A 5-1, 2).

(c) Conclusion

Since the gift contract on each real estate of this case is a fraudulent act, the cancellation of each gift contract of this case and reinstatement should be made.

2. Formation of preserved claims;

1. As described in Paragraph A., in the OO Tax Office, the notice was given on August 31, 2014 on the total of 17 value-added tax and aggregate income tax by omitting the amount of income of the integrated personal data survey for the non-party delinquent in arrears. On September 22, 2014, the non-party delinquent transferred the ownership of each of the instant real estate, which is the only property of the principal, to the Defendant on the donation, so there is no defect that the national tax claim becomes the preserved claim.

3. As to the intent to commit fraudulent act and to injure himself

A. As to the excess of the delinquent taxpayer’s liability at the time of September 19, 2014, each of the instant gift contracts was concluded

1) According to the evidence No. 6, the property status of a delinquent taxpayer as of September 19, 2014 is as follows.

Part 2.B’s active and negative property

(unit: Won)

Classification

Details

Balance

Jinay

Real estate

(Land)

OOdo OOOOOri 73

OOdo OOOOOri 76

(Case Real Estate)

officially announced value

1,571,040 won

Gap evidence No. 6;

Gap evidence 7 1, 2, each appraisal by official land price;

Gap evidence 8 1, 2, and 3 of each deposit transaction

money.

Agricultural Cooperatives

(000-000-0000-11)

(000-00-00542)

(000-00-0056)

1,599,747 won

20,527,941 won

5,831,709

The active property system;

29,530,437

National taxes

Amount in arrears

Notice of global income tax, etc.

△△△394,206,396

Gap evidence No. 2 received;

Evidence No. 3 No. 3 Inspection Notice

In the case of small-sized property system

△△△394,206,396

guidance.

△△64,675,959

2) Sub-determination

① As above, even if the delinquent taxpayer exceeded his/her obligation of KRW 29,530,437 as of September 19, 2014 and KRW 394,206,396, the delinquent taxpayer entered into a gift agreement with the Defendant on each of the instant real estate and deepened the excess of his/her obligation, and thus, the gift agreement on each of the instant real estate constitutes a fraudulent act.

B. As to the intention of the defaulted taxpayer to injure himself

① In Supreme Court Decision 2012Da107198 Decided April 11, 2013, the Supreme Court held that “the intention, which is a subjective requirement for the revocation of fraudulent act, is to recognize the fact that the debtor’s obligation cannot be satisfied due to the decrease of property by the debtor’s act of disposal of property or the shortage of joint security already in the situation of shortage of claims or the shortage of joint security,” and that “the intention of explanation by the delinquent taxpayer is to be recognized, considering the following: (a) the fact that each of the instant real estate contracts with respect to each of the instant real estate deepens the delinquent’s obligation due to the gift contract as described in the foregoing Section (A).

4. Bad faith of the defendant

A. (1) Supreme Court Decision 95Da51908 Decided May 23, 1997 ruled that "The creditor who asserts the revocation of the debtor's bad faith in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act has the burden of proving that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is bad faith, not the creditor, but the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is liable to prove the fact that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is bad faith." (2) Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710 Decided April 14, 2006 ruled that "In recognizing that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, objective and acceptable evidence should be supported, and it should not be concluded that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act because only the debtor's unilateral statement or the statement that is merely a third party's abstract statement is correct."

B. In light of the purport of the above precedents, the defendant is obliged to prove his good faith to the defendant, ② the defendant is not able to submit objective and acceptable evidentiary materials concerning his good faith, ③ the delinquent taxpayer and the defendant are in mother and child relations, etc.

5. Period of exclusion;

The plaintiff was aware that the real estate in this case was donated to the defendant, a person with a special relationship, for the purpose of arranging delinquent taxes against the non-party delinquent in arrears on the date of printing out computerized data on the property of the delinquent taxpayer to settle delinquent taxes against the non-party delinquent in arrears (the evidence No. 6). As of the date of the filing of the lawsuit in this case, one year from the date of becoming aware of the fraudulent act, and five years from the date of the fraudulent act were not imposed.

6. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the gift of this case by the non-party in arrears constitutes a fraudulent act committed by the non-party in arrears with the knowledge that it would prejudice the plaintiff, and also the defendant was aware of such facts. Therefore, the plaintiff was causing the claim of this case in order to cancel the contract of this case