a donation of real estate, which is one property after notice of taxation, constitutes a fraudulent act.

It should be revoked as a fraudulent act because it constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor, barring any special circumstance, to conclude a contract with the husband to donate real estate, which is one property, after the notice of taxation of capital gains tax, and complete the registration of ownership transfer, unless there is a special reason.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Ghana 211034 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

IAA

September 12, 2012

October 10, 2012

1. The contract of donation concluded on October 17, 201 between the defendant and the non-party KimB regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. As to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is the Gyeyang Registry Office of the Incheon District Court 2011.

10. He/she shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 50764 of the receipt.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 31, 2010, KimB sold 00 00 m2 and 503 m2 and above-ground neighborhood living facilities, such as 00 m2 and 44 m2 on the same 00 m2 and paid capital gains tax by scheduled declaration and payment.

B. As a result of the investigation conducted from July 25, 201 to September 21, 201 in order to verify the acquisition value and necessary expenses of each of the above real estate in relation to the above declaration by KimB, the head of Seo-man District Tax Office notified KimB of taxation on October 6, 201 by applying the conversion acquisition value on the ground that the acquisition value of each of the above sub-movables is unclear, and notified of the pre-announcement of taxation on January 6, 201, and then issued a notice of correction and notification on January 2, 2012 as of January 31, 2012, but the GB did not pay the said tax. KimB raised an objection to the said transfer income tax that was corrected and notified by the head of Seo-man District Tax Office, which was ultimately rejected.

C. On October 17, 201, after the notice of scheduled taxation of this case was issued, KimB entered into a contract with the Defendant, who is the husband, to donate the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case"), which is one of his own property, to the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the gift of this case"), and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the gift of this case on October 18, 201.

D. As of October 17, 201, the value of the instant real estate as of October 17, 201 is less than the amount in arrears of the said capital gains tax at KRW 000.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, evidence 6 to 11, and Eul evidence 1.11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above recognition theory, by giving notice of prior notice of taxation on October 6, 201, the head of Western District Tax Office had already existed at the time of the donation in this case, and there is a high probability that the tax claim should be established based on the existing legal relationship in the near future, and its probability has been realized on January 1, 2012. Therefore, the pertinent tax claim in this case can be the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da39560, Oct. 12, 2006). Furthermore, while KimB exceeded its obligation, the act of donation of the real estate in this case, which is the only property of the Defendant, to the Plaintiff, the husband, constitutes fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, and is presumed to fall under the intention of RaBB’s intention and the Defendant’s bad faith, the beneficiary, as a fraudulent act. Therefore, the Plaintiff may seek restitution to the Defendant as a fraudulent act.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

1) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion as to preserved claims

The Defendant, and ASEAN, one of them, purchased the OB land in Gyeyang-gu OB and constructed the above ground building under the name of KimB, and the KimB, which is merely the trustee, did not have any part in this act, and the transfer income tax imposed on him was unlawful because it violates the substance over form principle (it is understood that the Plaintiff’s preserved claim is nonexistent). In the first instance, the first instance court asserted that the first instance court held the title trust of the land and the above ground building located in Seoyang-gu OB-gu OB-dong OB-dong OB-si, Goyangyang-gu, Goyangyang-gu, and that the second through 10 evidence (including the second number) submitted by the Defendant to support it was insufficient to admit the above facts on the premise that there was no evidence or evidence as to the obligation relationship and demand of Section II, the details of the passbook transaction, questions and answers to the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, the results of the survey and non-payment of the above land, and there was no other evidence to support the title trust and the above evidence.

2) The defendant, and KimB did not know that the above Goyang-gu O-dong land and above-ground building were transferred due to the plaintiff's action, and therefore, the plaintiff did not have any intention to know. However, the plaintiff's intention to know that the real estate in this case was donated to the defendant, and whether the plaintiff knew of the transfer of the above Goyang-gu O-dong land and above-ground building was affected by the judgment of the intention to know, and the defendant's above assertion in itself is without merit.

3) The Defendant alleged that the title trust with respect to the instant real estate was made in the form of a donation to KimB, but it was merely returned to the Defendant’s name in the form of donation again by cancelling the agreement on donation or cancelling the title trust, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion. (Additionally, according to the above evidence and the evidence No. 5, it is recognized that the Defendant owned the instant real estate as a certified tax accountant, and there is a fact that the Defendant transferred part of the shares to the Defendant on the ground of the donation made on March 19, 197, and the Defendant did not take any measure on the register for 14 years thereafter, and on any occasion, did not know the Defendant at all about whether KimB donated the instant real estate to the Defendant at the time when the notice of scheduled taxation was given.)

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the gift of this case must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership to the plaintiff with respect to the real estate of this case as a result of restitution to its original state.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.