The act of transferring the ownership of movable property to the wife while there is a taxation right constitutes a fraudulent act.

The act of transferring the ownership of the movable property on which the collateral security has been created to the original form under the conditions of taxation rights constitutes a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2013 Ghana 76010 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

KimA

April 28, 2015

May 26, 2015

1. On October 0, 201, the sales contract concluded between the Defendant and the Non-Party B with respect to 00 Doo-si 00 Doo-si 00 Doo-si 00 Doo-si 000 Doo-si, and 000 Doo-si 000 Doo-si, respectively, shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 00,000,000.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final to the day of full payment.

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

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 0, 2009, Nonparty 2 worked as the representative director of SamE Co., Ltd., and on October 0, 2009, Nonparty 2 did not normally report to the newB on October 0, 2012, even though he received low-price increase in the number of new stocks, thereby imposing KRW 00,000,000 on the newB as of October 0, 2012. In addition, on October 00, 2009, NewB did not normally report to the newB on the donation of low-price increase in the number of new stocks, which was 00,000,000 won for the payment period of KRW 0,000 for the 00,000 for the 000,000,000 for the payment period of KRW 10,000 for the 00,000 for the 200,010.

B. The NewB fails to pay the above taxes and Korea has a taxation claim against the newB except for the amount partially appropriated as of October 2013, as follows:

C. Around October 0, 2010, NewB provided FFF association with a 00-si 000-si 00000-si 00000-si 00000-si 00000-si 00000-si 00000-si 0000-si 10000-si 20000-si 20000-si 2000-si 2000-si 2000-si 2000-si 2000-si 2000-si 2000-si 100-si 2000-si 100-si 200-si 100-si 200-si 100-si 2000-si 1010-si 200-Ga 1,0002.

D. Around October 0, 201, NewB owned the instant real estate as well as the instant real estate and the instant real estate as KRW 00,000,000,000 and above-ground buildings, etc. (hereinafter “factory buildings, etc.”). The instant real estate and the instant joint security real estate were registered 00,000,0000 won for maximum amount of 00,000,0000 won for 00,0000,000,0000,000, and 00,000,000,000,000, for the instant factory buildings, etc. as seen earlier. However, among the instant factory buildings, the establishment registration was completed on the EE Bank as the debtor EEE, 00,000, 000,000, 000, 000, 000,000, 000, 000,000, 000,000.

F. Meanwhile, around October 00, 2012, the newB filed a petition for bankruptcy on the grounds that the N Card Co., Ltd., other than the tax liability, bears a total of KRW 0,000,000,000 on the part of creditors, on the other hand, on the other hand, the newB filed a petition for bankruptcy on the grounds that there is no property. The 00 district court declared a bankruptcy against the newB on October 0, 2013, and appointed attorneys KimV as bankruptcy trustee.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including any number without the separate map; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence 7-1, Gap evidence 9, 10, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the claim

A. According to the facts of recognition of preserved claims, the Republic of Korea has a taxation claim of KRW 000,000,000,000 against Nonparty NewB. Although a taxation claim against Nonparty NewB of the Republic of Korea was imposed after the purchase and sale of the instant real estate (O. 0, 201), the taxation claim was already established prior to the sale and purchase of the instant real estate, and is in the near future.

The taxation claim of the Republic of Korea is the preserved claim of the right to revoke the fraudulent act, since the non-party B committed the act of selling and selling the real estate in this case while the non-party B was scheduled to be subject to the disposition of imposition on the non-party B, and the tax claim of the Republic of Korea was actually imposed on the tax claim established by the

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

According to the facts of recognition, the instant factory building, etc. is hard to satisfy the secured debt of the already established collateral security, and selling the instant real estate which is not identical to the only property under the condition of the remaining financial institutions and the Plaintiff’s tax liability (O. 0, 201) and the instant joint collateral real estate (O. 0, 201, Oct. 0, 201, and Oct. 00, 201), which is readily consumed between one week, constitutes a fraudulent act by reducing ordinary creditors’ joint liability property, barring special circumstances.

Although the Defendant asserts that newB sold the instant real estate at a reasonable price and repaid its obligations to the FF cooperatives, it does not constitute a fraudulent act. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant purchased the instant real estate at a reasonable price. According to the above fact of recognition, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit considering that the Defendant can fully repay its obligations to the FFF cooperatives with the said money, even if the value of the jointly secured real estate sold by newB at the same time as the instant real estate was 00,000,000 won ( +00,000,000 won).

Since the defendant asserts that he is a bona fide beneficiary, as long as he constitutes a fraudulent act, the defendant, who is the beneficiary, must prove that he is the bona fide beneficiary, and there is no evidence to prove this, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit

D. In principle, where a legal act on real estate subject to the scope of revocation of a fraudulent act and compensation for value constitutes a fraudulent act, the fraudulent act shall be revoked and ordered to recover the real estate itself, such as cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership. However, if a fraudulent act was conducted with respect to real estate on which the mortgage is established, such fraudulent act shall be established only within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount from the value of the real estate. Therefore, in cases where the establishment registration of a mortgage is cancelled by repayment, etc. after a fraudulent act, ordering the cancellation of a fraudulent act and the restoration of the real estate itself to the extent that it does not constitute a joint security of the original creditors, thereby going against fairness and fairness, order cancellation of a fraudulent act and compensation for the value thereof within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount of the mortgage from the value of the real estate, and such calculation shall be based on the value at the time of the conclusion of the fact-finding trial proceedings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da3734, Dec. 27, 2001).

[Reference]

Examining the above facts in light of the above legal principles, the value at the time of closing argument of the instant real estate.

At the time of the closing of argument, joint storage in proportion to the value of the instant real estate and the joint security real estate

any balance remaining after deducting the amount obtained by dividing 000,000,000 won, which is the total amount of the secured claim of the party right;

In the Do, the fraudulent act shall be revoked and the amount of compensation shall be calculated in detail.

The following results:

Therefore, the real estate of this case was concluded on October 0, 201 between Nonparty NewB and the Defendant.

Since a contract is a fraudulent act, it shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 00,000,00, and the defendant shall be the plaintiff.

In addition, 00,000,000 won as compensation for value and the Civil Act from the date when this judgment became final to the date when it is fully paid.

The damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of 5% per annum as set forth above.

3. Conclusion

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