The gift contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act with knowledge that the contract of this case would prejudice the plaintiff who is the creditor.

Except for deposit claims, since the gift of this case, the only property of this case, which is the property, is donated to the defendant, who is its wife, and eventually exceeds the obligation, it constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that the gift of this case would cause the shortage of joint security of the general creditor, and thereby prejudice the plaintiff, who is the creditor.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

201Gaz. 23304 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

SAA

June 14, 2012

July 5, 2012

1. The pledge of the gift fraternity concluded on June 8, 2010 between the defendant and the rightB regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed in accordance with the receipt No. 17927 of June 8, 2010, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the authorityB.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) A taxation claim;

1) At the same time, the head of the Seocho-gu Tax Office notified CCCC Co., Ltd. to rectify and impose KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the year 2008 and pay it up to July 31, 2009, which is the due date. ② At the same time, the head of the Seocho-gu Tax Office notified the CCCCCC Co., Ltd to rectify and impose KRW 000 of the assessed value-added tax for the first time in 2009 and to pay it up to September 30, 2009, which is the due date, but the above company did not pay the corrected corporate tax and value-added tax, and there was

(2) On May 26, 2010, the head of the Seocho District Tax Office (hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant taxation dispositions") notified that the oligopolistic shareholder, who has 60% of the shares of the above company, should be designated as the secondary taxpayer, and that 000 won of the above corporate tax and 000 won of the above value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant taxation claims") should be paid by June 15, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant taxation dispositions"), and the rightB received each of the tax notifications stating the same details as the circumstances on May 31, 2010; 3) but the rightB did not pay the above corporate tax and value-added tax.

(b)the disposition by the rightsB;

On June 8, 2010, "The rightB entered into a contract with the defendant, who is his wife, to donate the real estate (hereinafter "the real estate in this case") listed in the separate sheet on June 8, 2010 to the defendant (hereinafter "the gift contract in this case"), and on the same day, the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter "the ownership transfer registration in this case") as described in the order of the defendant was completed with respect to the real estate in this case."

At the time of the donation contract of this case, the rightB had active property of this case (real estate 1) and deposit claims of 000 won, and the small property had a total of 00 won of each tax liability of this case.

[Grounds for Recognition: The purport of the whole pleadings of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, evidence 1 to 5, evidence 4, evidence 5 evidence 1, 6, evidence 7, evidence 8, and evidence 1 through 2, and evidence 9 to 9)

2. Judgment

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

1) The secondary tax liability is abstractly established by the occurrence of the fact that falls under the requirements, such as the main taxpayer’s default, and is specifically determined by the notice of payment. As seen earlier, it is recognized that the rightB received each of the respective notice of payment on May 31, 2010 and received the notice of each of the instant dispositions. Therefore, each of the instant tax claims was made before June 8, 2010, which is the conclusion of the instant gift contract.

2) Defendant’s assertion and determination thereof

The defendant, as well as the rightB lending only the name of the business owner of the above company to the business owner, and the defendant alleged that the tax disposition of this case against the rightB was unfair since it did not participate in the operation of the company or receive the fees for the name lending. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the tax disposition of this case is invalid, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other reason to acknowledge that the tax disposition of this case was revoked, and the defendant's assertion

(b) Fraudulent act;

At the time of the donation contract of this case, there was KRW 000 of the real estate and the deposit claim of this case with the small property with the aggregate of 000 won of each tax obligation of this case. The rightB, except the above deposit claim, donated the real estate of this case, which is the only property, to the defendant, who is one of its own wife, and eventually exceeds the obligation, ultimately, the contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would cause the lack of common security of the general creditor, and it is presumed that the defendant, the beneficiary, knew that it would cause the lack of common security of the general creditor, constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would cause damage to the plaintiff as the creditor, and the defendant, the beneficiary, is presumed to have received the donation.

(c) Revocation of fraudulent acts and reinstatement;

Therefore, the instant donation contract concluded on June 8, 2010 with respect to the instant real estate should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant, a beneficiary of a fraudulent act, is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case as the restoration to its original state.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.