Transfer of real estate owned by a delinquent taxpayer constitutes a fraudulent act.

In the year when the defendant calculated the processed purchase, the basic legal relations of the plaintiff's tax claim occurred, and the transfer of real estate owned by the delinquent and the transfer of ownership is a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor.

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

2013 Ghana 212582 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

LAA

October 15, 2013

October 24, 2013

1. (a) As to real estate listed in the Appendix 1 List:

1) Revocation of a sales contract concluded on May 0, 2010 between the Defendant and the largestB; and

2) On May 0, 2010, the Defendant carried out the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration made under heading 000 on receipt on May 0, 2010 to the largestB, ○○ District Court ○○○ registry office,

B. As to 1/2 shares of real estate listed in the Schedule 2:

1) The sales contract concluded on May 0, 2010 between the Defendant and the largestB is revoked, and

2) The Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration made on May 0, 2010 by the ○○ District Court ○○○○ registry office ○○○ on the part of the Defendant.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

With respect to the real estate listed in paragraphs (a) and (2) of attached Table 1, the sales contract concluded on May 0, 2010 between the defendant and the lowestB shall be revoked, and the defendant shall implement the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration made on May 28, 2010 by the ○○ District Court ○○ registry office ○○○○ registry office ○○.

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

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) On November 0, 2004, 00:0 00 :00 :00 :00 : 14-35 FF building 405 FCC media. A business operator who has engaged in wholesale and retail/broadcasting equipment and sound equipment business in the name of “CC media” was exempted from value-added tax and comprehensive income tax by appropriating the amount processed by DD Co., Ltd. and EE Global in filing the global income tax return for 1, 2006 and 2007 and 2006 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant tax claim”). The Plaintiff issued a disposition to rectify value-added tax and income tax on December 0, 2010 to the largestB on which the Plaintiff made the subsequent tax investigation, as follows (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant tax claim”).

See Table 3

2) On May 0, 2010, LB completed the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which was owned by the Defendant, on May 0, 2010, due to sale and purchase on May 0, 2010. On May 0, 2010, LB completed the registration of ownership transfer for one-half portion of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, on May 0, 2010.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, 5, Eul evidence No. 1 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

B. Determination

According to the above facts, in the year 2006 to 2007 where the largestB calculated a processed purchase, the basic legal relationship of the Plaintiff’s taxation claim occurred. In light of the fact that the instant taxation claim was established through a series of procedures, such as a correction disposition, etc. according to the processed purchase revealed as a result of the investigation into the largest BB, it was highly probable that the instant taxation claim would be established in the near future in the near future, and its probability was realized in the near future, and the instant taxation claim was established. Thus, the instant taxation claim can be the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001). Meanwhile, the transfer of each real estate listed in the attached list (attached Form 2’s real estate) in the Defendant under excess of the maximum B’s obligation, and the transfer of ownership constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the obligee’s joint security by reducing the creditor’s ownership.

C. Judgment on the defendant's defense

The Defendant asserts that the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 is merely trusted in the name of the largest BB, and that the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 is purchased from the largest BB, and that the most BB paid 000 won tax in arrears and 000 won in the ○○ Tax Office and ○○ Tax Office.

First of all, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had held title trust on the above real estate to the largestB by entering the evidence No. 3 alone.

Next, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including additional numbers), the defendant resided in the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 from around 1997 to the defendant, and the defendant paid 000 won to the ○○ and ○○○ Tax Office on February 0, 2010. However, considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments in evidence Nos. 3 and 1-2, in addition to the income tax seizure registration of the Republic of Korea (the ○○○○ Tax Office: ○○○ Tax Office) that the defendant paid for each of the above real estate, the attachment registration of each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 list Nos. 1 and 3 (the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list) was recognized as having been registered, and the defendant paid 1/200 won in good faith at the time of the purchase of each of the above real estate, the defendant seems to have no other evidence to acknowledge that the above real estate was insufficient.

3. Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Therefore, the sales contract for 1/2 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant has a duty to cancel the registration of ownership transfer stated in the order due to restitution (the plaintiff is seeking cancellation of the sales contract for the entire real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 and cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer, but as seen earlier, the defendant only entered into a sales contract for 1/2 shares and received ownership transfer, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation and restitution in excess of the above 1/2 shares

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed as it is without merit.