The mere fact that the Defendants’ assertion does not constitute a ground for rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim under law.

The instant gift contract concluded between the Defendants constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff’s taxation rights, and the Defendants, the beneficiaries, are presumed to have known of such fact. As such, the instant gift contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

2014 Ghana 21894 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

1.A 2.B 3. ThisCC

August 20, 2014

November 5, 2014

1. As to 1/3 of each share of 00 square meters out of 582-3 forest land in O-Myeon O-gu O-si O-si O-si:

A. Revocation of a gift agreement concluded on March 21, 2012 between EDR (OO-OOOO) and the Defendants; and

B. The Defendants shall comply with the procedures for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on March 27, 2012 by the Suwon District Court Registry of the Suwon District Court (UD) and completed on March 27, 2012.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) Facts of recognition;

"1) DoD sold OO-type O-type O-type 4-3 forest land to EE comprehensive development corporation on August 31, 201, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 6, 2011 (hereinafter “transfer 1”); ② on March 2, 2012, O-type O-type O-type 131 m2, 489 m265 m265 m2, and sold each registration of ownership transfer on March 29, 2012 (hereinafter “transfer 2”); ③ on March 15, 2012, O-type O-type 130 m20 m265 m265 m265 m265 m20; and on March 15, 2012, O-type O-type 130 m20 m20 m213 m20 m20 m210.

"3) On the other hand, in excess of the debt on March 21, 2012, DNA donated 1/3 of each share of the land listed in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter "the gift contract of this case") to the Defendants, their own children, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership listed in the Disposition No. 1-B on March 27, 2012, and 4) on May 30, 2014, EDR's delinquent tax amount related to transfer Nos. 1 through 3 as of May 30, 2014 is an OOO.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

According to the above facts, at the time of the instant donation contract, the Plaintiff’s taxation requirements, such as transfer income tax, etc., were already met at the time of the instant donation contract, or transaction, which is the legal basis for the creation of the claim, was established, which is the legal relationship that is the basis of the occurrence of the claim, and there was a high probability for the establishment of the claim based on such legal relationship in the near future, and its probability has been realized in the near future, and thus, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim arising from the transfer of the title 1 through 3 constitutes

Furthermore, according to the above facts, this case's gift contract concluded between DoD and the Defendants constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff's taxation rights, and the Defendants, a beneficiary, are presumed to have been aware of such facts. Thus, this case's gift contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act. Accordingly, the Defendants are obliged to implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration as to 1/3 of each share out of the land specified in Paragraph (1) of this Article to the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

The Defendants asserted to the effect that since H comprehensive development corporation, which acquired an O-type O-type O-type 4-3 forest land of 3579 square meters from DoD, was responsible for capital gains tax on the said land, the Defendants cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

On the other hand, the defendants' assertion does not constitute a ground for rejecting the plaintiff's claim under law. Thus, the defendants' above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and this is accepted.