It is difficult to see that the debtor (the debtor) was aware of the circumstances that the gift contract of this case harms general creditors.

The fact that the debtor, as to the real estate of this case, came into insolvent by concluding the gift contract of this case with the defendant is insufficient to deem that the debtor was aware that the debtor would prejudice the general creditors including the plaintiff.

2012 Ghana 213122 Revocation of fraudulent act

Korea

StateA

February 21, 2013

March 21, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

After cancelling the gift agreement concluded on January 29, 2010 between the defendant and the branchB, real estate stated in the separate sheet, and the defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on January 29, 2010 with the registration of the Incheon District Court and the registration of the transfer of ownership completed on January 29, 2010 to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

(a) The details of taxation on the branchB and the amount of the taxation claim;

(1) From January 29, 2004 to December 31, 2011, the branchB filed a tax return and paid a tax in the course of operating a construction business (fire-fighting construction and design) under the trade name, “B engineering” from 000, Nam-gu, Incheon (OOdong 00 to 00).

(2) Between August 22, 2011 and October 18, 2011, the director of the Namcheon District Tax Office of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “the director of the tax office”).

1.1. From December 31, 2010, the result of the tax investigation conducted with respect to the branchB on the period from December 31, 2010 showed that the branchB received a processed tax invoice without a real transaction and discovered the fact that the tax was unreasonably reduced, and accordingly, on December 4, 201, the branchB issued a notice of the global income tax for the first term of 2010, including the global income tax for the year 163,427, and 204 won, and the global income tax for the year 2010.

(3) On December 5, 2011, the branchB filed an objection with respect to the above notice, and on December 26, 201, the head of India District Tax Office rendered a reinvestigation decision on December 26, 201, and conducted a reinvestigation between January 26, 201 and February 3, 2012, as a result, the branchB was determined as KRW 131,336,360 for global income tax to be paid by the branchB as of December 31, 201 (hereinafter “instant tax claim”).

(b) gift contracts between the branchB and the Defendant and the insolvency of the branchB;

(1) On January 29, 2010, the branchB entered into a donation contract with the Defendant, as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer completed on January 29, 2010 by the Incheon District Court and the receipt No. 7616 on January 29, 2010 (hereinafter “instant donation contract and ownership transfer”).

(2) At the time of the donation contract of this case, Defendant branchB had positive property and had no particular property other than the instant real property in an amount equivalent to the market value of KRW 000,00, and it had no negative property, other than the instant tax claim, KRW 000,000.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-13, and Eul evidence 3 (including number, if any), and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

(1) In principle, a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation should arise before the act was committed, but there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there is a legal relationship that is the basis for the establishment of the claim, and that at the time of the fraudulent act, the right shall be established in the near future, and that at the near future, the claims may also become the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation in case where the claim has been created by the realization of its identity in the near future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da53704, Feb. 25, 2000).

(2) According to Article 21(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 21(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay income tax is established when the taxation period expires, and according to the above acknowledged facts, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay income tax on the Plaintiff’s branchB terminates with global income tax in December 31, 2009 as global income in December 31, 2009, and the Plaintiff’s legal relationship that forms the basis for establishing the Plaintiff’s claim for taxation on the ground of the Plaintiff’s branchB was already generated at the time of the conclusion of the gift contract of this case, and the tax investigation on the branchB from August 22, 2011 conducted on the ground of the above legal relationship in the near future, as well as it was confirmed in the near future, the instant tax claim of this case can become the creditor’s preserved claim for revocation.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

(1) The fact that the branchB entered into the instant gift agreement with the Defendant with respect to the instant real estate, which is its sole property, and led to the insolvent.

(2) However, the above evidence and evidence were written in Nos. 4-13 (including serial numbers), and the witness testimony of DoB as follows: ① The gift contract of this case was in January 29, 2010 and the tax investigation related to the tax claim of this case began on August 22, 201, approximately one year and seven months after the commencement of the BB engineering, and ② The DoB was in business without default until the tax investigation related to the tax claim of this case was conducted after the commencement of the BB engineering, and ③ The processed tax invoice received by DoB was delivered by DoB to DoB from the customer who received the birth of DoB and delivered it to DoB, and therefore, it was difficult to view that DoB had not known that it was a processed tax invoice, and therefore, it was difficult to find that it was a non-processed tax invoice of this case between the Plaintiff and the creditor of this case at the time of the gift contract of this case, and that it was difficult to find it otherwise due to the lack of evidence.

(3) Therefore, the instant donation contract does not constitute a fraudulent act (it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant constitutes a bona fide beneficiary who did not know that the instant donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act even if the instant donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act).

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.