The gift contract of this case is a fraudulent act and must be revoked.

Since the instant donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act, and the obligor concluded the instant donation contract with the knowledge that it constitutes a fraudulent act, it should be revoked.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act)

2019 Ghana 100928 ( October 25, 2019)

Korea

○○ et al.

on October 28, 2019

on July 26, 2019

1. The contract of donation concluded on July 7, 2016 between Defendant ○○○ and Kim○○ on each real estate in the separate sheet between the Defendant’s right holder and Kim○○○ shall be revoked.

2. Defendant ○○○ has performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of each transfer of ownership, which was completed as of July 8, 2016 by the receipt No. 12139, with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to Kim○○○ in the separate sheet.

3. Defendant Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, and Kim○○ shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership, which was completed on February 26, 2004 by the ○○ District Court ○○○○ registry office on the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list to Kim○○.

4. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 14, 2016, Kim○ transferred land to ○○○○○, ○○○○○, 1585-7, 1585-9, and 1585-17, which was owned by Kim○, ○○, Kim○, in which he/she reported the expected income of KRW 83,448,045 on April 15, 2016, which was calculated as KRW 83,48,045 and reported the scheduled income for the transfer income, but did not pay the said transfer income tax.

Accordingly, on July 11, 2016, the head of the ○○ Tax Office notified Kim ○○ to pay capital gains tax of KRW 84,474,455, including penalty tax.After all, Kim Jong-he did not pay capital gains tax, and on December 2018, the sum of the capital gains tax and the additional charges exceeds KRW 115,392,00.

B. On July 7, 2016, Kim○-○ and each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estates”) with Defendant ○○○, the wife on July 7, 2016, entered into a donation contract (hereinafter referred to as “the instant donation contract”) with respect to each of the instant real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estates”). On July 8, 2016, Kim○-○ and ○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○”) completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant real estates based on the instant donation contract.

C. Each of the instant real estate was owned by the original Kim○○○’s headquarters, and the network Kim○ died on February 27, 2015, and on February 27, 2015, Kim○○ transferred the ownership registration for each of the instant real estate due to an inheritance by consultation and division.

On February 26, 2004, the deceased Kim○○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, and Kim○, and the first real estate of this case.

As to the pre-sale agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "pre-sale agreement of this case"), the above Defendants made a provisional registration claim for ownership transfer registration based on the pre-sale agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional registration of this case") with ○○ District Court No. 3023 received ○○ Registry (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional registration of this case").

D. At the time of the conclusion of the gift contract of this case, real estate No. 1 of this case (the publicly announced land price is KRW 50,59,000), real estate No. 2 of this case, real estate No. 3 of this case (total land price is KRW 54,00,000), real estate No. 2 of this case (the publicly announced land price is KRW 54,000), ○○-ri 642-10 forest land (the publicly announced land price is KRW 873,080), 146 square meters (the publicly announced land price is KRW 873,080), ○○-ri 1349-3 road No. 20 square meters (the publicly announced land price is KRW 752,00), ○○-ri 1350-10 road No. 46

There was a lot of 1,729,600 square meters (the publicly announced land price was KRW 1,729,600). However, in the case of the 2 and 3 real estate of this case, the right to collateral security was established, which is the ○○ Military Fisheries Cooperatives, the debtor’s right to collateral security, the maximum amount of debt amount

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 9 (including branch numbers, if any), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant ○○○

A. According to the above facts, since Kim○-○ donated each of the instant real estate, which is one’s active property, to the defendant right ○○○○, and thus, the lack of joint security for creditors, it is reasonable to deem that the instant donation agreement constitutes fraudulent act, and that the debtor Kim○-○ concluded the instant donation agreement with the knowledge that it constitutes fraudulent act. The defendant right ○○, who is the wife of the debtor Kim○-○○○, was maliciously committed by the defendant

shall be presumed.

B. As to this, Defendant ○○○ asserts to the effect that the instant gift contract does not constitute a fraudulent act, inasmuch as the title of the instant first real estate was originally nominal to the deceased Kim○○○○, and the ownership transfer registration was made on the ground of inheritance to Kim○○○, and the instant second and third real estate was entrusted to Defendant ○○○ in the course of voluntary auction proceedings conducted in the previous process of voluntary auction, by repaying the secured debt of the relevant mortgage and resolving the auction procedure, and in which the ownership transfer registration was made on the ground of inheritance to Kim○○○, the instant gift contract does not constitute a fraudulent act.

First of all, considering that the first real estate of this case was donated to the Defendant ○○○ by the Defendant, not a clan or another clan member, with respect to the first real estate of this case, the first real estate of this case is difficult to believe it as it is or it is insufficient to recognize the Defendant ○○’s assertion on the first real estate of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Next, it is not sufficient to acknowledge Defendant ○○○’s assertion solely on the written evidence Nos. 5 and 5 through 7 with respect to the instant 2 and 3 real estate, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

C. The instant gift agreement entered into between Defendant ○○○ and Kim○○ constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, revoked this, and Defendant ○○○○ District Court’s ○○○○○ registry with respect to each of the instant real estate, which was completed on July 8, 2016, bears the obligation to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of each transfer of ownership, which was completed on July 8, 2016 by the receipt of No. 12139.

3. Determination on the claim against Defendant Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, and Kim○○

According to the above facts, the right to complete a pre-sale agreement based on the instant transaction agreement between the deceased Kim○ and the defendant Kim○○, Kim○○, Kim○○, Kim○○, and Kim○○○, based on the instant first real estate, was extinguished by the lapse of ten years from the date of the pre-sale agreement. In addition, Kim○, who succeeded to the instant first real estate from the deceased Kim○, to the deceased Kim○, was insolvent.

The above Defendants, as creditors of Kim○-○, are obligated to perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of the provisional registration of this case to the Plaintiff who exercised the right to request cancellation of the provisional registration of this case against the above Defendants by subrogation.

in this chapter.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.