It shall submit evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s omission in sales was not leaked to the extent that the amount was not leaked to the private sector.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not submit any evidence to acknowledge the special circumstance that the omitted amount of sales was not leaked out of the company, it shall be deemed that the omitted amount of sales was leaked out of the company, and so long as the ownership is not clear, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff’s bonus for the Plaintiff, a joint representative director of bB, should be disposed of as a bonus for the Plaintiff, and the fact that the ownership is clear shall be proved by

2017 Ghana 100604 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

】 】

AA

August 24, 2017

September 21, 2017

1. The sales contract concluded on December 1, 2016 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and Dd (on November 28, 1958) is revoked. 2. The defendant will implement to DD the registration of the Cheongju District Court with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) and the procedure for registration cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on December 16, 2016 as receipt No. 152012. 3. The litigation cost is borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 1, 2016, 2016, the director of the BB Tax Office, under the Plaintiff’s trade name, notified each of the value-added tax and the global income tax belonging to from 2012 to 2015 (the service date of the notice on December 6, 2016), as shown in the attached Table, on the amount of national taxes of KRW 637,60,70 as of the date of the filing of the instant lawsuit, in arrears of the said notice.

B. DD concluded a sales contract with the Defendant on December 1, 2016 with regard to the real estate listed on the separate list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff on December 1, 2016, which is the date of the Plaintiff’s notice of tax payment, on which DD completed the registration of transfer of ownership listed in the Disposition No. 2 (hereinafter “instant transfer of ownership”). On December 16, 2016, DD held the instant real estate (i.e., KRW 120,00,000, KRW 60, KRW 700, KRW 400, KRW 600, KRW 2006, KRW 700, KRW 600, KRW 700, KRW 600, KRW 700, KRW 206, KRW 700, KRW 259, KRW 300, KRW 400, KRW 705, Dong-dong and KRW 70,000, KRW 75,075, Dong-dong.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 17, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Establishment of fraudulent act

On the other hand, the act of harming the creditor who is the object of the creditor's right of revocation is a juristic act for the purpose of property right, and thereby, that the creditor's passive property exceeds active property or lacks debt status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da27903, Aug. 27, 2002). According to the facts found in the preceding paragraph, the sales contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances, since the total tax claim amounting to 622,015,260, as shown in the attached Table against the plaintiff's DD, including the other tax claim amounting to 62,015,260, which was already established prior to the sales contract of this case, becomes the creditor's right of revocation.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the instant sales contract was a legitimate transaction by good faith, without knowledge of ddd, the seller of the instant real estate, and that the instant real estate was normally purchased through a real estate broker. However, even if all the evidence submitted by the Defendant were integrated, it is insufficient to accept such evidence. In addition, the following circumstances revealed in the proceedings of the instant sales contract, i.e.,, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid the remainder of 70 million won to dd on December 16, 2016, which was 14 days before December 30, 2016, which was 14 days before the outstanding payment date of the instant sales contract. However, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid the remainder to 20 million won to d on December 16, 2016, which was 207, and that it was 30 million won upon the conclusion date of the sales contract, and that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid taxes to 30 million won on December 17, 20197.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.