The act of transferring an apartment owned by the person himself/herself to the friendship in order to be exempted from the disposition on default of national taxes constitutes a fraudulent act.

The sales contract between the defendant and his child must be revoked because the defendant knew that it would prejudice the person who has the right to tax payment due to the default of national taxes, and the defendant should also know that it would have known that it would prejudice the person who has the right to tax payment due to the default of national taxes.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

§ 406. Revocation of Civil Code

2012 Ghana 11402 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

United Kingdom A

July 3, 2013

July 17, 2013

1. A sales contract concluded on February 20, 2012 with the Defendant and the competentB with respect to the OO-dong No. 2942 CCC No. 206, 206, and No. 1302, which was concluded on February 20, 2012, shall be revoked within the scope of O-O.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff OOO and the plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 24, 201, 201, OB transferred 1196 D 101, OO-dong 1196 D 101, and reported transfer income tax on September 29, 2001, and under-reported the actual transaction price. The head of the Plaintiff-affiliated Racing Tax Office notified the rightB of the pre-announcement of taxation on February 15, 2012, and then on May 1, 2012, the transfer income tax for 2011 due to the above real estate disposition was determined and notified as OOB as an OO.

B. On February 20, 2012, the rightB entered into a contract to sell OO-si No. 2942 CCC 206, 1302 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) to the Defendant, who is the child of O-si, O-si, O-si, 2942 CCC 206, 1302 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). On April 6, 2012, Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, 1911, received on April 6, 2012; (c) on the instant real estate, the instant real estate was established on October 26, 201, and the ownership transfer registration was cancelled to 30OF 20,000 won under the name of OF 14.24, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 12, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Whether the fraudulent act was established

1) According to the above facts, although the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against the rightB was not yet established at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, it may be deemed that there was a high probability as to the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against the rightB in the near future at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, since there was a disposal of real estate and underreporting the actual transaction price, which is the basis of the establishment of the tax claim, and thus, the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against the rightB against the Plaintiff may be the preserved claim against the instant fraudulent act revocation lawsuit.

2) Since the rightB sold the instant real estate, which is one of its sole real estate in excess of the debt, it constitutes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance, and the obligor’s intention and the beneficiary’s bad faith are presumed respectively.

3) As to this, the Defendant alleged that the instant real estate was a bona fide beneficiary who acquired the instant real estate through normal transactions, but the testimony by the witness rightsB, which seems consistent with this, is difficult to believe it as it is, in light of the relationship with the Defendant and the lack of consistency in the statement, etc., it is insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s good faith by only the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5-1, 2, and 6-1, 6-1, and 6-2 of the evidence Nos. 3, 5-1, 5-

(b) Method and scope of restitution;

1) Since the cancellation of the right to collateral security, which was already established after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, is as seen earlier, in such a case, the fraudulent act shall be revoked and the compensation for damages shall be ordered within the scope of the balance remaining after deducting the secured debt amount from the value of the instant real estate.

2) Meanwhile, the Defendant asserted that: (a) the establishment of a maximum amount of debt on January 27, 2012, 2012, the obligor’s rightB, and the mortgagee’s right to collateral security was cancelled due to confusion on April 6, 2012, which was after the instant sales contract; and (b) the establishment of an OOB’s loan obligation against the Defendant, which is the secured debt, should also be deducted; (c) under the evidence evidence No. 5, the foregoing mortgage was cancelled; (d) in light of the fact that the establishment of a real collateral security right was revoked; (e) it is difficult to believe that the testimony of the witness B, who appears to correspond thereto, is inconsistent with the statement related to the Defendant; and (e) there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the guaranteed debt; and (e) there is no other evidence to acknowledge the existence of the guaranteed debt.

3) Ultimately, the instant sales contract shall be cancelled within the limit of OOO (=OOO -OO - the Defendant shall be liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as set forth in the Civil Act from the day following the date of completion of the instant contract to the day of completion of the instant contract, which is the date of completion of the instant contract, to the day of completion of the instant contract, after deducting OOO won from the amount of the secured obligation of the instant collateral security (i.e., the date of completion of the instant contract) at the market price of each of the instant real estate at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract.

3. Conclusion

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