The conclusion of a sales contract for the real estate held in the name of the delinquent in excess of debt constitutes an act of fraud.

Since the conclusion of a sales contract with the defendant for real estate which is the only property that the delinquent taxpayer is in excess of his/her obligation constitutes fraudulent act, and the intention to commit suicide is recognized, the sales contract of this case must be revoked, and the defendant has the obligation to restore it to its original state.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2017 Ghana 67515 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

A. Ma

2018.05.31

2018.06.28

1. The sales contract concluded on August 18, 2016 with respect to each real estate in the separate sheet between the defendant and S shall be revoked.

2. The defendant's above Ss,

A. The registration of transfer of ownership completed under No. 157465 of the receipt of August 22, 2016 by the Ulsan District Court with respect to the real property in paragraph 1 of the attached list;

B. The registration of transfer of ownership completed on September 21, 2016 by the Ulsan District Court (Ulsan District Court) No. 174648, Sept. 21, 2016

Each cancellation registration procedure shall be implemented.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in full view of the evidence of subparagraphs A and 8 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

A. S is a company running civil engineering and construction business from October 10, 1998 to June 17, 2014 and is liable to pay corporate tax for 2013 years and value-added tax for 1 year 2013 to the Plaintiff. The details of default are as follows (unit: source).

B. On August 18, 2016, S entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for real estate A (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On August 22, 2016, S completed each registration of transfer of ownership with the Ulsan District Court No. 157466, Sept. 21, 2016 regarding real estate listed in attached Table No. 157466, as to real estate listed in attached Table No. 15766, Sept. 21, 2016.

C. S did not have any specific property other than each real estate listed in the separate sheet equivalent to the total transaction value of KRW 140,000,000 at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract. However, the passive property was KRW 716,397,050, even if only the principal tax is imposed on the Plaintiff, and was in excess of the obligation.

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

s’ conclusion of the instant sales contract with the Defendant regarding each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the only property in excess of the obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, and s’ intent is recognized. Therefore, the instant sales contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to implement s’ procedures for registration cancellation of each transfer of ownership.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion

○ on February 4, 2010, s purchased each of the real estate listed in [Attachment List 1] from D on February 4, 2010, s in [Attachment List 2] fromff on May 30, 2010, and all of eormaRk were paid, but each registration of ownership transfer was not made by dd andff's non- cooperation.

○ On May 6, 2013, when the Defendant was unable to recover s’ design cost claims, the Defendant delegated ss to the Defendant a lawsuit for ownership transfer registration of s’ real estate in attached Table 1(1) against d and a lawsuit for ownership transfer registration of s’ real estate in attached Table 2 against s’ claim against d., and the Defendant, under which s’ expense is borne, shall execute each of the above lawsuit for ownership transfer registration, and s shall sell s’ real estate in attached Table 1 to the Defendant at KRW 20,000 per ordinary day (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

○ The Defendant, who carried out a lawsuit for the registration of ownership transfer in the litigation cost, followed the decision of recommending reconciliation, made the registration of ownership transfer to S in the name of each real estate listed in the attached Table s.

○○ Pursuant to the instant agreement, S entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendant for each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet at KRW 140,000,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant.

○ At the time of the instant agreement, the Plaintiff’s above taxation claim against S did not exist, which cannot be a preserved claim of obligee’s right of revocation.

○ The Defendant is a bona fide beneficiary with whom the status of S’s obligations cannot be known.

B. Determination

1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the testimony of the witness g, the instant sales contract appears to have been concluded as the grounds alleged by the Defendant. However, in light of the following: (a) the taxable period of corporate tax for the year 2013 is from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013; and (b) the taxable period of corporate tax for the year 1, 2013 to June 30, 2013 was from January 1, 2013 to May 6, 2013 upon which the instant agreement was concluded, the said taxable period for the Plaintiff of s was already in the commencement of the pertinent tax liability for the Plaintiff at the time of May 6, 2013; and (b) it was reasonable to deem that s had a high probability of establishing the Plaintiff’s tax claim as to sss above basic legal relationship with the Plaintiff’s tax claim as to the Plaintiff’s right to revocation.

2) At the time of May 6, 2013, the date of the conclusion of the instant agreement, s appears to have no particular property except for the right to claim for ownership transfer registration with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet against D andff (the testimony in the gg of the witness). In the near future, it is reasonable to conclude that the instant agreement was in itself a fraudulent act to sell the attached list to the Defendant where s restores ownership of the real estate in the near future, under highly probable circumstances where s would be liable to pay the said tax liability to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the circumstance that the instant sales contract was concluded based on the instant agreement does not serve as the grounds for the elimination of the existence of the instant sales contract. This part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3) In light of the evidence Nos. 6 through 8, the testimony of Nos. 1 through 4 and 7 of the witness g alone is insufficient to deem the Defendant as a bona fide beneficiary, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, so the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.