The act of entering into a sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act, except in extenuating circumstances.

Unless there are special circumstances, the act of entering into a sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the plaintiff, and is presumed to be a bad faith of the defendants, who are the intention and beneficiary, and since the sales contract was not known that it constitutes a fraudulent act, they are the bona fide beneficiaries, but there is no evidence to acknowledge

201Adver 73386 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

XX Co., Ltd

December 18, 2012

January 8, 2013

1. The sales contract concluded on February 22, 201 with respect to each of the real property listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3 between Defendant Co., Ltd and ParkA shall be revoked.

2. Defendant XX Co., Ltd.:

(a) completed on February 25, 201 by the Changwon District Court (Hawon District Court) Branch of the District Court with respect to each real estate listed in [Attachment List 1 and 2] No. 4134;

B. On February 25, 2011, the Changwon District Court subordinate District Court’s registration office as to the real estate stated in paragraph 3 of the attached list was completed as No. 4135 of the receipt.

The procedure for the cancellation registration of each transfer of ownership shall be implemented.

3. With respect to real estate listed in Attachment 4:

(a) cancel the sales contract concluded on February 25, 201 between the Defendant AB and BA, and:

B. Defendant AB shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on March 2, 201 by the receipt of No. 7931 of the receipt of the Jeju District Court Seopopool registry office, to the Plaintiff.

4. As to the shares listed in Attachment 5:

(a) cancel the sales contract concluded on February 23, 201 between the Defendant AB and BA, and:

B. The defendant AB notified the corporation of the cancellation of the sales contract under paragraph 1(a) above.

5. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 31, 2010, the Plaintiff notified that ParkA sells 3,306/9,329 shares of 3,30,000 square meters among the 117-13 square meters of forest land and 9,329 square meters (in the case of the above real estate, 117-13 square meters of forest and 92 square meters of forest and 117-22 forest and 3,054 square meters of forest, 117-23 forest and 3,300 square meters of forest and 117-24 forest and 1,983 square meters of forest and 117-24 forest and 1,983 square meters of forest and 3,306/9,329 shares to the maximumB on October 27, 2010, but did not pay the amount of global income tax by 00,000 square meters until the same month.

B. On February 22, 2011, Park Dong-gun, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Company”) holding 45% shares in the said paragraph without paying the comprehensive income tax under the said paragraph (a), and on February 22, 201, Park Dong-dong, Sin-gun, Sin-gun, Sinnam-do (hereinafter referred to as “san 117-12”); 3,100 square meters of forests and fields 17-13, 17-13, 92 square meters of forests and fields (hereinafter referred to as “san 117-13”); 3,054 square meters of Sinsan 17-22 (hereinafter referred to as “san 17-22”) and 117-241,983 square meters of forests and fields, all of which were divided into the above real estate sale contract with Defendant 29-24,983 square meters of forests and fields (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant 197-2197.2 square meters of forests and fields”).

C. On February 23, 2011, Park Dong-B entered into a sales contract with the Defendant AB, his father, and the Defendant to sell the shares listed in Paragraph 5 of the [Attachment List (hereinafter “instant shares”) to the said Defendant. On February 25, 2011, Park Dong-A entered into a sales contract with respect to the real estate listed in Paragraph 4 of the [Attachment List (hereinafter “Pri Real Estate”) and completed the registration of transfer of shares to the said Defendant on March 2, 201.

D. Thereafter, on June 17, 2011, the shares of 93/3,100 in Mountain 117-13, and shares of 31/3,054 in Mountain 117-22 and shares of 31/3,054 in Mountain 117-22 were sold to the largestCC and the registration of ownership transfer (part) was completed on the same day.

E. The Plaintiff notified that ParkA would pay KRW 000 global income tax on August 8, 201 by the 31st of the same month, as ParkA made a provisional return on the return of profit from sale of land, etc. on XX real estate, but did not pay it. However, ParkA did not pay it up to the present day.

F. ParkA sold the instant shares and XX properties to the Defendant Company, thereby having become more than active property, and thereafter sold the instant shares and XX properties to the Defendant AB.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including the number of branch offices), the result of the market price appraisal commission to the KK Certified Public Accountants Office, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts of recognition, the act that ParkA entered into each of the instant sales contracts with the Defendants constitutes fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances, and the act is presumed to constitute fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, and the intent of ParkA to commit suicide and the Defendants, the beneficiaries, are presumed to have

B. Determination as to the defendants' defense

Since the Defendants did not know that each of the instant sales contracts constituted fraudulent acts, they are the bona fide beneficiaries. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and therefore the Defendants’ defense is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, among the sales contract between the defendant company and ParkA, the sales contract for each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the sales contract for each of the real estate of this case between the defendant AB and YA as requested by the plaintiff shall be revoked as fraudulent act, and the defendant company shall be obligated to restore the original state to its original state. The defendant company shall complete each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and notify the defendant company that the sales contract for the shares of this case was revoked as to the shares of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.