The act of donation of real estate shares in excess of debt constitutes fraudulent act and must be revoked.

The act of making a donation to the Defendants, who are relatives of the shares of each of the instant real estate in excess of debts, constitutes a fraudulent act that reduces the joint security of creditors, including the Plaintiff.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2018 Ghana 515971 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

leA et al.

May 9, 2019

June 13, 2019

1. The gift agreement concluded on January 13, 2017 with respect to each 301.6919/6,300 shares among each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between ○○ and Defendant B shall be revoked.

2. To revoke a gift agreement concluded on February 27, 2017 with respect to each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet between ○○ and Defendant leapA with respect to 346.3081/6,300 shares among the respective real estates listed in the separate sheet.

3. As to the portion of 346.3081/6,300 out of the real estate listed in paragraph 2 of the attached list ** district court** registry*********************************.

4. The plaintiff shall pay the amount calculated by the ratio of 5% per annum to the day after the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment with respect to the amount of KRW 34,969,83, and the amount of KRW 43,964,840 and each of the above amounts.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Man○○ did not pay taxes of KRW 167,363,270 in total as of January 13, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax claim”) as of April 15, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax claim”), including the transfer of land*** Dong** even after the transfer of land.

B. With respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each of the real estate in this case") 648/6,300 shares on December 23, 2016 * district court*** receipt of registration office********* on January 13, 2017, under a contract with Defendant B on donation with respect to each of the real estate in this case on January 17, 2017 301.6919/6,300 shares of each of the instant real estate * district court*** receipt of registration office****** on January 17, 2017 * in this case ** in this case * in this case’s receipt of each of the instant real estate * in this case* in this case’s receipt of each of the instant real estate * in this case* in this case’s receipt of each of the instant donations * in the district court* on February 27, 2017 * in this case’s receipt of each of donations*

C. The Ma○○ was in excess of the obligation at the time of each gift contract of this case.

D. On the other hand, the transfer registration of ownership on each of the instant real estate was changed before and after each of the instant donations contracts.

E. At the time of the closing of argument in this case, the sum of the market value of each of the real estate listed in paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 of the attached list 346.3081/6,300 shares of Defendant PapA among the real estate listed in the attached list 34,969,833 won. The sum of market value of each of the real estate listed in each of the real estate in this case, 301.69/6,300 shares of Defendant BB, is KRW 43,964,840.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including the number of each branch), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The establishment of a fraudulent act;

A. Establishment of preserved claims and fraudulent acts

According to the above facts, the tax claim of this case against the Plaintiff ○○ is the preserved claim for the obligee’s right of revocation, and le00 was in excess of the obligation at the time of conclusion of each gift contract of this case. Thus, each of the gift contracts of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, which reduces the joint security of the obligee, including the Plaintiff, and constitutes a fraudulent act. The le00 knew that it would prejudice the obligee, including the Plaintiff, and the malicious faith of the Defendants, the beneficiary, is presumed also. Accordingly, in order to preserve the tax claim of this case, the Plaintiff may seek the cancellation of each of the gift contracts of this case and its restoration against

(b) Methods and scope of reinstatement;

1) In the case of the real estate listed in paragraph 2 of the separate sheet, there was a change in ownership after each gift contract of this case, but there was no change in the shares of Defendant Yoon 346.3081/6,300. As such, Defendant Yoon apA owes a duty to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer completed under paragraph 4* district court*** registry office**** the registration office of February 28, 2017 with respect to the 346.3081/6,300 shares of the real estate listed in paragraph 2 of the separate sheet.

2) As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 3, and 4, since the right to collateral security was established after the conclusion of each gift contract of this case or the ownership was transferred to a third party with respect to each of the real estate of this case, the defendant Eul has to restore it to its original state by means of compensation for value. Accordingly, the plaintiff is obliged to pay to the plaintiff 34,969,8333 won, the total market price of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 3, and 4, which is 346.301/6,300 shares of the defendant leA among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 3, and 301.69/6,300 shares of each of the real estate of this case, and the delay damages for delay.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, each gift contract of this case shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and with respect to the portion of 346.3081/6,300 out of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto ** district court**** registration office of February 28, 2017 **** the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the Defendant AA, the Defendant B, the KRW 43,964,840, and each of the above amounts are liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

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.