If value-added tax is anticipated to be notified and the real estate which is one property is transferred to the mother, it constitutes a fraudulent act.

The transfer of ownership due to sale to the parent-child of real estate which is one property under the predicted that the value-added tax will be notified after filing a revised return on the revised return constitutes a fraudulent act committed with the knowledge that it would prejudice the creditor in order to evade tax obligations.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Ghana 203401 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

XX

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

June 12, 2012

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

(a) cancel the sales contract concluded on December 23, 201 between South A and the Defendant, and

B. The Defendant shall comply with the procedure for the registration of this Court and the cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by the head of the 1288777, which was received on December 30, 2011.

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. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

Grounds of Claim

1. The relationship between Nonparty A and the Defendant

Defendant JungB is the mother of Non-Party in arrears of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as "non-party in arrears"). (A's 1, 2's 1, 2's 'A' 'A' 'A' 'A' 'A' 'A' 'A' 'A' 'A' 'A' 'A' 'A'

2. Details on establishment of the taxation right which is the right to failure to preserve;

A. On March 31, 2011, the head of the Suwon Tax Office issued a notice of KRW 000 as the payment deadline for the non-party’s non-party’s non-payment after the non-party’s return on the confirmation of value-added tax for the second year 2010, KRW 00 as the payment deadline for the non-payment after the return on the confirmation of value-added tax for the year 2010, KRW 00 as the payment deadline for the non-payment after the return on the confirmation of value-added tax for the first year 201, KRW 00 as the payment deadline for the non-payment after the return on the confirmation of value-added tax for the year 201, and KRW 00 as the global income tax for the year 2011.

B. In addition, the Nonparty filed a revised return on December 25, 201 on the value-added tax for the period of 1, 2009, 2009, and 1, 2010, but the head of the Suwon Tax Office notified 000 won,000 won, and 000 won, respectively, as the payment deadline on December 29, 2012. (The Non-Party issued a revised return on the value-added tax for the period of 1 to 5, and the revised return on the global income tax for the period of 1 to 5, 200, and the revised return on the value-added tax for the period of 29, 201.

C. The Nonparty paid KRW 0 million, which is a part of the national tax notified as above, and the present country in arrears reaches KRW 7 million (including additional dues). (See the following details of arrears):

(2) The following details are omitted:

3. Fraudulent act;

A. While the Nonparty had already been in arrears with three other items of value-added tax other than the value-added tax for February 2010, it was predicted that the value-added tax will be notified by filing a revised return for the value-added tax for the first and second years in 2009, and the first and second years in 2010, the Non-Party would not be able to obtain the satisfaction of the tax claim under the above paragraph (2), the Non-Party was insolvent and the Plaintiff, a tax claim holder, was unable to obtain the satisfaction of the tax claim under the above paragraph (1) 6's evidence No. 2's evidence No. 6-2's evidence No. 6's register, and Gap's certificate No. 6's land register No. 3's evidence No. 6's evidence No. 6's register).

4. Whether the pertinent real estate was the primary property

After the director of the Suwon Tax Office under his jurisdiction conducted an investigation of the property of the non-party for the purpose of the disposition on default, as shown in the Data Status Table (Evidence A7) such as the property of the non-party, the real estate of this case was the only possible national tax appropriation.

5. Intention and bad faith of the defendant;

The real estate of this case, which is the only property owned by oneself, was transferred to the Defendant by reason of sale. This is to say that at the time of transfer, the Nonparty was aware of the Plaintiff, who is the taxation right holder, and the Defendant, with the mother of the Nonparty, should be deemed to have known the fact that the transfer was fraudulent act and the intention of the Nonparty’s deception.

6. The date on which he becomes aware of a fraudulent act;

The plaintiff was issued on March 05, 2012 a certified copy of the register of the real estate of this case to execute the disposition on default against the non-party that the real estate of this case was registered for ownership transfer in the name of the defendant, and he became aware only of the fraudulent act of this case.

7. Lack;

In light of the above facts, the sales contract for the real estate of this case between the Nonparty and the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act, which is an act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, who is a tax claim, in order to evade tax obligations. Therefore, the Plaintiff was entitled to the claim of this lawsuit, such as the purport of the claim under Article 406 of the Civil Act and Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act.