(b) a fraudulent act committed by a delinquent taxpayer while knowing that the delinquent taxpayer would prejudice the plaintiff

Where the debtor's assets are insufficient to fully repay the debtor's assets, if the debtor transferred his/her assets to a specific creditor, the act of transferring ownership of real estate should be deemed to have been known to the defendant due to a fraudulent act while the delinquent taxpayer knew that it would prejudice the plaintiff.

2012Chap 21700 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

KimAAAA

May 29, 2013

June 12, 2013

1. A contract of donation concluded on August 9, 201 between the Defendant and a privateB regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and the privateB shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 000.0.

B. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 000 and 5% per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claims: as shown in the reasons for the claims in the annex (However, as of the filing date of the appeal in paragraph 5), the claims shall be described as "at the time of fraudulent act";

2. Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment by public notice) of the applicable provisions of Acts;

3. Conclusion

Full Acceptance of Claim

Cheongwon of the Gu

1. Factual basis

(a) Status of parties;

The Plaintiff is a person who has a national tax claim of KRW 000,000 against Nonparty BB as shown in the following Table 1, and Defendant KimO is the spouse of Nonparty BB due to Nonparty B’s default (the first and second marriage relation certificate and family relation certificate of the third floor).

(b) Taxation details;

"The head of Gangseo-gu Tax Office and the head of Hongcheon Tax Office under the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "creditor") have a tax claim of KRW 7,000,000 in total of capital gains tax/value added tax, and the non-party in arrears is not voluntarily paid by the non-party in arrears as shown in Table 1 below, and the non-party in arrears is in arrears (the detailed inquiry into the decision of collection on decision of KRW 17,000 in subparagraph 2)." (The non-party in arrears 1's Table 1' as of November 21, 2012).

2. Right to be subject to the revocation of fraudulent act;

The notice of national tax in arrears under attached Table 1 constitutes the preserved claim prior to the date of the fraudulent act of this case (the date of registration of ownership transfer: 08.09.).

3. Fraudulent act;

On August 5, 2011, the real estate indicated in the attached list, which was owned by an ancestor under one of the heirs of the deceased co-O type on February 4, 2001, was divided through a consultation with the same co-O and registered by inheritance on August 5, 201, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the defendant KimO on the ground of donation on August 9, 201. (No. 3-1 marriage certificate No. 3-1 marriage certificate) (No. 3-2 family relations certificate No. 4) (No. 4)

4 Reduction of responsible accounting

The market price (the amount equivalent to 1983/309/300 of shares) of the real estate listed in the attached list at the time of the fraudulent act in this case

00 won (the assessed value of property on the gift tax report of KimOO, which is a compromise) reduced the liability property of KRW 000 by donating the real property listed in the attached list of this case to the defendant KimO, which was non-party BB, the non-party in arrears, to the non-party in arrears (the assessed value of property on the gift tax report of the non-party in arrears) (A-4th real estate register

5. Excess of debts.

As of the date of the filing of the lawsuit, active and negative properties that are able to form a responsible property other than the instant real estate by Nonparty BB as of the date of Nonparty B’s filing of the lawsuit are KRW 000, while the aggregate of the positive properties is KRW 000, the aggregate of the negative properties is 000, so it can be known that Nonparty BB is insolvent in excess of the active properties. (B)

6. Non-Party B’s intention to become a beneficiary from Non-Party B’s non-Party B

Non-party BB was in arrears with total 7 cases of capital gains tax and value-added tax, and 000 won until now, and Non-party BB made it impossible for creditors to dispose of national taxes by donating the instant real estate to the defendant KimO in order to change the disposition of national taxes in arrears.

7. Bad faith of the defendant

As above, if the intention of the non-party BB’s explanation is recognized, the defendant’s bad faith will will be presumed (Supreme Court Decision 97Da6711 Decided February 13, 1998). The defendant KimO would have known the non-party B’s intention at the time of donation of the real estate to the non-party BB’s spouse.

8. Period of exclusion;

On July 20, 2012, the Plaintiff came to know that the instant real estate donation was a fraudulent act on July 20, 201, when the property acquisition and transfer data were comprehensively searched after delinquency by the publicB of the delinquent taxpayer. The date when the instant fraudulent act was committed was known, and on July 20, 2012, the date when the cause for revocation of the fraudulent act was known was July 20, 201, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act was filed within five years from the date when the fraudulent act was committed as of the date of the lawsuit, and within one year from the date when the cause for revocation was known.

9. Value compensation.

Defendant KimO-O donated the real estate indicated in the attached list to Nonparty BB on August 18, 201, and thereafter established a right of preference (debtor: GoO, maximum debt amount of KRW 000, maximum debt amount of KRW 000, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security: Sungnam Agricultural Cooperative) and sought compensation, as stated in the claims, from Defendant KimA (a certified copy of the real estate register out of subparagraph 4).

10. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the act of transfer of ownership of the real estate listed in the separate sheet by the non-party BB shall be deemed to have been known to the defendant due to the fraudulent act committed by the delinquent taxpayer while knowing that the delinquent taxpayer would harm the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was entitled to seek compensation for the value of the real estate listed in the separate sheet like the claim.