debtor's donation of property to another person in excess of his/her liability constitutes a fraudulent act.

If a debtor has donated his/her own property to another person under excess of his/her obligation, such act constitutes a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

201Aband8724 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AAA Research Institute, a foundation

October 1, 2013

October 24, 2013

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

A. The gift agreement concluded on January 13, 201 between the Defendant and the DelegationB (OO-OOOOO) shall be revoked.

B. The Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on January 20, 201 by the Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court) and the Plaintiff pursuant to the receipt No. 1510.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The relation between the rightB and the defendant

The defendant is an incorporated foundation that has representative authority while the rightCC, who is the type of the rightB, serves as a director.

B. Tax claims against the Plaintiff’s rightB

1) The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control conducted a tax investigation on the rightB from October 15, 201 to March 28, 2011 (hereinafter “instant tax investigation”).

2) On April 13, 201, the director of the tax office of the Plaintiff-affiliated tax office imposed global income tax on the rightB on April 13, 201 pursuant to the above tax investigation (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and held a national tax claim against the rightB (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Year

Global Income Tax

Date of establishment of tax liability;

Deadline for payment

206

OOOE

December 31, 2006

April 25, 2011

2007

OOOE

December 31, 2007

April 25, 2011

208

OOOE

December 31, 2008

April 25, 2011

209

OOOE

December 31, 2009

April 25, 2011

2010

OOOE

December 31, 2010

April 25, 2011

Total

OOOE

3) On March 19, 2012, the competentB filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition by the Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap9437, the Seoul Administrative Court. On August 14, 2013, the said court rendered a judgment to revoke part of the instant disposition with the following content. At present, the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2013Nu27359) is pending in the appellate trial.

Year

Imposition Disposition

Amount of award

Amount revoked

206

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

2007

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

208

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

209

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

2010

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

Total

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

(c) Disposition of property by the rightB;

On January 13, 2011, the period of the instant tax investigation, the rightB decided to donate (hereinafter referred to as the “instant gift agreement”) the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the rightB to the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the Defendant’s name as the receipt No. 1510 on January 20, 201, Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul District Court”).

(d)the excess of obligations of TitleB;

At the time of the instant donation contract, the rightB had been in excess of obligations as follows.

[affirmative Property: OOOO in the aggregate of the instant real estate

(OOOO of the instant one real estate + OOO of the instant two real estate)

Golf membership OOOO

(A) EOOOOO, Suwon SCC membership ESOO, EOOOOOO in case of Asia orCC membership

Total financial property OOO

Total: OOO(OOwon + 4OO + OOOwon)

Small property: OOO in total of the national tax claims of this case

(based on the quoted amount of the Seoul Administrative Court No. 2012Guhap9437 among the disposition of this case

Total: OOOO)

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry (including paper numbers) of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The occurrence of the right to revoke the fraudulent act;

A. Formation of preserved claims

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the national tax of the OOB (OOB as of the amount of award of the first instance judgment) due to the instant disposition, and it can be recognized that the Plaintiff’s national tax claim against the OB was established prior to the date of the instant donation contract (OOB as of January 13, 201), and thus, the pertinent national tax claim constitutes the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation.

B. Whether a fraudulent act was committed

1) Relevant legal principles

If a debtor donated his/her own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, such act constitutes a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da57320, May 12, 1998; 2006Da11494, May 11, 2006; 2005Da28686, May 31, 2007).

2) Determination

Inasmuch as the rightB had concluded the gift contract of this case with the Defendant in excess of its debt, and thus the property of liability for the general creditors who are still insufficient, the gift contract of this case constitutes fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, including the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, it constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the other creditors including the Plaintiff, and it is presumed that the Defendant’s bad faith, which is the beneficiary, is presumed.

C. Whether the defendant acted in good faith

1) Summary of the defendant's assertion

Considering the following circumstances, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the instant gift contract was a fraudulent act. ① The Defendant was unaware of whether the rightB was subject to the instant tax investigation at the time of the instant gift contract, and as a result, was unaware of the amount of the instant national tax claim. ② The Defendant, the representative of the Defendant, was aware of the fact that the rightB, who was the production, had been engaged in a company in the world in the name of “DB” and operated the ship, and was unaware of the personal obligation of the rightB. ③ The instant real estate was left as the rightB and the rightB, and was used by the Defendant, and the rightB donated the instant real estate to the Defendant according to the maintenance of the rightB.

2) Relevant legal principles

In a lawsuit seeking a fraudulent act, the beneficiary has the burden of proving that he/she was a fraudulent act. In such a case, the beneficiary must bear the burden of proving himself/herself, and in recognizing that he/she was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, objective and acceptable evidence, etc., and only the unilateral statement of the debtor or a statement that is merely a third party's abstract statement, etc., that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act should not be readily concluded (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5710, Apr. 14, 2006).

3) Determination

The statement No. 1 alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was the good faith at the time of the donation contract in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the following facts are acknowledged in full view of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 8 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

① The instant gift contract was concluded on January 13, 201, when the instant tax investigation with respect to the rightB was conducted.

② The rightCC, the representative of the defendant, shall be punished by the rightB.

③ The instant real estate was acquired by the Republic of Korea on February 27, 1990 on the ground of inheritance by the NA 6/17, NAE 6/17, NAB 4/17, NAF 1/17, and NAF 6/17, but the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant real estate on November 21, 2005, NAF 1/17, and NAF 1/17 acquired the ownership of the instant real estate on November 21, 2005. The Defendant, who acquired the ownership of the rightB 4/17 due to the instant gift, actually acquired the ownership of the instant real estate.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Methods of reinstatement;

The instant contract of gift between the rightB and the Defendant shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant shall be obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed as of January 20, 201 by the Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, Daegu, and 1510, with respect to the instant real estate, to the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons of the judgment as per Disposition.