a contract of sale and purchase of shares constitutes a fraudulent act that is an act to evade tax liability.

The establishment of tax liability prior to the fraudulent act, and there was a high probability that taxes will be imposed in the near future on the basis of the near future legal relationship, and accordingly national taxes have been imposed and national taxes have been established accordingly, so the creditor's right of revocation can become the preserved claim.

2012 Gohap15117 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

The AA

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

October 18, 2012

1. The share transfer contract concluded on May 19, 2009 with respect to the shares listed in the [Attachment 1] List between the defendant and the B shall be revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the transfer procedure to BB on the shares listed in the attached Table 1 list due to restitution due to the revocation of fraudulent act.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claim;

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the cause of the claim.

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

Grounds of Claim

1. The relationship between Nonparty BB and the Defendant

The defendant Jeong-A has the honor to take over the part of the non-party taxpayer B B (hereinafter referred to as "non-party B") before the national tax. (A's 1,2's 1-2's 1,2's 1-1,2's 1-2's 1, and A's 3-1,2's 3's 1-2's 'family relation certificate')

2. Details on establishment of tax claims, which are preserved claims;

A. On September 30, 2008, the head of Seosan District Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control issued a notice of KRW 000 by the due date for the final return of value-added tax on January 30, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “Non-Party 4”) to Non-Party CC Steel (hereinafter referred to as “Non-Party 4”) and notified the Non-Party 00 won by the due date for the payment of value-added tax on September 30, 2008. The fact that the under-reported return of corporate tax for the year 2005 to 2008, including non-data sales, was investigated, and notified KRW 00,00,000 as the due date for payment on March 31, 2011, respectively.

B. When the non-party company paid the tax without or in part by the due date, the non-party company did not pay the tax until the due date. The director of the Seosan District Tax Office under the plaintiff's control of the non-party as the oligopolistic shareholder holding 47.67% of the shares of the non-party company designated the non-party company as the secondary tax obligor on November 15, 2008 and October 03, 201, and notified the non-party as the secondary tax obligor on the same date, and notified the non-party company to pay the delinquent tax until November 25, 2008, and notified the non-party company to pay the delinquent tax until May 23, 2008, respectively.

C. On December 15, 2009, the head of Seosan District Tax Office under the Plaintiff-affiliated District Tax Office notified 000 won of the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2009 as the due date for payment, and 000 won of the gift tax for the year 2008 as the due date for payment on April 30, 2010, 000 won as the due date for payment on December 31, 201 with respect to underreporting of the global income tax for the year 2008, 00 won as the due date for payment on December 31, 2011, 00 won as the due date for payment on the income tax for the non-declaration of the transfer income tax for the year 2009, 000 won as the due date for payment on October 10, 2009, and 300 won as the total real estate holding tax for the non-listed stocks for the year 2010/3010 of the non-listed stocks.

D. The Nonparty paid the above taxes without or only part of it, and the tax in arrears amounts to 14 00 won including additional dues (see the following table 1).

The following table1 omitted:

E. Among the above defaults, the gift tax No. 1, No. 3, gift tax, No. 4, global income tax, No. 6-9, and gift tax No. 13-14 were established prior to the fraudulent act and the basic legal relationship for taxation to be imposed was generated. In the near future, it was highly probable that taxes will be imposed on the basis of such legal relationship in the near future, and accordingly, the national tax was imposed and the tax claim was established. Thus, the creditor’s right of revocation can become the preserved claim.

3. Fraudulent act;

A. The Nonparty, as an oligopolistic shareholder of the non-party company, designated the secondary tax liability of the non-party company with respect to the amount of national taxes in arrears of the non-party company, at the time of designating the secondary tax liability of the non-party company. In addition, on October 05, 2007 and October 13, 2008, the non-party sufficiently predicted that a large amount of national taxes related to the non-party company's failure to receive insurance money, etc. from his spouse and to report gift tax shall be notified, or under high probability, dLT transferred shares listed in the attached Table (hereinafter referred to as "the shares of this case") in the non-party company's oligopolistic shareholder list (hereinafter referred to as "the shares of this case") on May 19, 2009 by transferring the shares of the non-party company's property available for national tax appropriation to the defendant Jeong, the plaintiff reduced the liability property by transferring it to the non-party company. It was caused that the plaintiff failed to obtain the satisfaction of the tax claim.

B. The non-party does not pay the notified national taxes up to now, and the transfer of the shares of this case, which are the property usable for national taxes, to the defendant Sinnn. The act is the most active act to evade the plaintiff's compulsory execution due to the disposition of national tax in arrears or the fraudulent act

4. Excess of debts;

(a) Active property;

On December 19, 2009, the non-party's active property at the time of the transfer of the stock in this case was 15 real estate and 15 non-listed stocks of the 6 companies as shown below in the list 2. The 12 real estate under auction at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the time at the appraisal price and the other 3 real estate were assessed as the officially assessed individual land price, and the sum of the non-party's active property after the appraisal of the non-listed stocks at the settlement date on December 31, 2008 at the time at the settlement date at the time (the evidence No. 9 of the 100 won No. 1 to 3 of the evidence No. 10, the 11-1 to 6 of the evidence No.

(B) The status of the property before the Non-party B at the time of the fraudulent act

(B) omitted

No. 3. Status of shares of BB of the Non-Party at the time of the fraudulent act

(3) omitted

(b) Sub-state property;

At the time of the transfer of the instant shares on September 19, 2009, the non-party's small property is KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

C. Therefore, the Nonparty would have been in excess of his/her obligation since the negative property at the time of fraudulent act exceeds his/her positive property.

5. Intention and bad faith of the defendant;

In the event that the non-party was designated as the secondary tax obligor of the non-party company and was in arrears with the notice of payment, and it was predicted that the basic legal relationship would have already been established and that the high-amount national tax would have been notified, the non-party transferred the shares of this case, which is the property available for the appropriation of national tax owned by himself, to the defendant for sale. This would have known that the non-party would have harmed the plaintiff at the time of transfer, and the defendant would have known the fact that the transfer was fraudulent act and the intention of understanding the non-party.

6. The date on which he becomes aware of a fraudulent act;

In order to execute the disposition on default against the Nonparty, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the shares of this case were transferred in the name of the Defendant and that the special relationship between the Defendant and the Nonparty was obtained on February 23, 2012 with the Defendant’s registered copy on the part of the Defendant, and became aware of the fraudulent act of this case.

7. Conclusion

In light of the above facts, the sales contract for the shares of this case between the Nonparty and the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act, which is an act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the Plaintiff, who is a tax claim, in order to evade tax obligations. Therefore, the Plaintiff was entitled to the claim of this case as stated in Article 406 of the Civil Act and Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act.