As fraudulent act constitutes a beneficiary's bad faith, gift contract should be revoked.

Since there are a large amount of delinquent amount and the amount of delinquent amount exceeds the obligation of assets, it is recognized that the gift contract is concluded with children who are beneficiaries and the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary, the gift contract should be revoked.

2014 Ghana 4848 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Park AA

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

July 9, 2014

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

A. Revocation of the gift agreement concluded on January 27, 2012 between the Defendant and Nonparty ParkB (OO-OOOOO) and the Defendant, and:

B. On February 2, 2012, the Defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed by the OOOO of the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court).

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

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

Indication of Real Estate

1. Indication of the building;

O also OOO OO-type 835 Faccupa warehouse 1

(Road Name Address: OO also OO-gil 115-9)

The end of 92.8 square meters of storage facilities (a farmers' warehouse) on the light-weight structure, steel structure, and other pental roof.

Cheongwon of the Gu

1. Grounds for the imposition of disposition against Nonparty B’s gambling

"A. Nonparty B (Defendant's father) entered into a fraudulent act of Nonparty 2 on January 12, 2012 with Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 2 with Nonparty 323 square meters of land for OO 39 O, ② O 40 square meters of land for O 40 O 8,260 square meters, ③ O 41-1 square meters of O 41-1 and 85 square meters of O 41-2 O O 807 square meters of O 200, ⑤O 211 square meters of OB 43, 43, 400, O200, 200, and 305.76 square meters of O's 200,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000).

“A. At the time of January 27, 2012, Nonparty 2: (a) had the duty to pay taxes equivalent to the total amount of OOB to the Plaintiff; (b) had active property ① OO23,839 square meters of forest land at OO23 at OO2,4731 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 26.69% of evidence No. 3-1, No. 3-2, No. 3-2); (c) OOB equivalent to the total amount of KRW 208,000,000,0000,0000 KRW 1372,000 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200,000Du271, Jan. 27, 2012).

C. On the other hand, on December 15, 201, Nonparty 2 had the fact that on the other hand, Nonparty 2 created a joint mortgage on the real estate indicated in the “Attachment 835m2 owned by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2” (see, e.g., the copy of the register of real estate No. 7, A evidence No. 8), and “If part of the real estate jointly mortgaged is owned by the debtor and is owned by the mortgagee, it is possible for Nonparty 2 to exercise the right to collateral on the real estate owned by Nonparty 2 by subrogation under Articles 481 and 482 of the Civil Act.” In light of the fact that Nonparty 2 is in a position to exercise the right to collateral on the real estate owned by Nonparty 1, 201, it is reasonable to view that the joint mortgage claim amount is more than the value of the joint mortgage claim held by the debtor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201O., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du38164, supra.).

A. In principle, it is required that a claim protected by the obligee's right of revocation has arisen prior to the act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, if a claim is specifically established through a series of procedures such as a decision of correction, etc. in the near future, there is high probability that the claim is established in the near future, and the possibility is realized in the near future, and the claim may also become a preserved claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da64038, Nov. 26, 2002). This legal principle applies to a claim, as it is, even in the case of a tax claim, even if there was no specific decision of correction, etc. at the time of the fraudulent act, there was a basic legal relationship as to the occurrence of the claim, and where a claim is established specifically in the near future through a series of procedures such as a decision of correction, etc. under the high probability of establishing a claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da6403636, Jun. 26, 2007).

B. Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 105 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act, a resident who transfers land or a building shall file a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income within two months from the last day of the month to which the transfer date belongs, and pursuant to Article 110 (1) of the Income Tax Act, a resident who has any transfer income in the corresponding year shall file a final return on the tax base of transfer income from May 1 to 31 of the following year.

According to Article 114 (1) and (8) of the Income Tax Act, the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment provides that if a person liable to make a preliminary return or a person liable to make a final return fails to do so, he/she shall determine the tax base and tax amount of the resident concerned and notify

C. According to the above relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, income tax on the transfer margin of assets is abstractly established on the last day of the month (the month to which the date of the transfer of assets belongs), and the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the address of the transferor of assets determines the transfer margin and the amount of tax on a person who fails to make a preliminary return on the transfer margin of assets, and notify the relevant resident of the tax base, tax rate, tax amount, and other necessary matters in the notice of tax payment (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu7887, Mar. 23, 199

D. The instant immovable property was transferred on January 26, 2012 and became the basis for establishing the instant tax claim prior to the date of the instant donation (i.e., January 27, 2012), and there was a high probability on the fact that the instant tax claim was created in the future. On January 31, 2012, the said tax liability was established abstractly, and thereafter, the head of ○○ Tax Office decided and notified the transfer income tax to ParkB on January 2, 2013, and it was confirmed specifically by the decision and notification of the transfer income tax, and thus, the relevant probability was realized and the claim was created.

On the other hand, the claim amount of the preserved claim includes the additional charges incurred after the fraudulent act and until the closing of argument in the fact-finding court (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007). Therefore, the entire claim amount of the pertinent preserved claim is recognized as the preserved claim.

4. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, this case’s gift contract constitutes fraudulent act stipulated in Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act, and thus, seeks revocation of the above gift contract, and the defendant's original state to the plaintiff.