property is donated to another person in excess of the debtor's liability and constitutes a fraudulent act.

An act of depositing money into each of the above accounts held in the name of the defendant is deemed to have been donated to the defendant as much as the amount of money deposited, and if the debtor donated his own property to another person under excess of his obligation, such act shall constitute a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012259 Revocation of fraudulent act

Korea

AAA

April 3, 2012

April 26, 2012

1. On December 28, 2006, the contract between the defendant and the successorB is revoked, and the contract of 000 won entered into on January 2, 2007, and the contract of 000 won entered into on January 8, 2007 is revoked.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 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.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

(a) A taxation claim;

1) DeB sold its shares (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) among the 000 OOdong 2,268m2, and 208m2, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, and received from the buyer each payment of KRW 00 on December 19, 2006, and KRW 00 on the same month.

2) On August 20, 2010, HB did not report the transfer income tax following the sale of the instant land, and on August 20, 2010, NB decided 000 capital gains tax on the transfer margin of the said land and 000 capital gains tax on the aggregate of 000 capital gains tax on the transfer margin of the said land, and 00 capital gains tax on the amount of penalty tax for failure to report, and 00 capital gains tax on the amount of penalty

3) On February 24, 2012, the above transfer income tax, including additional charges, which was not paid by YB, is 000 won.

(b) Deposit in a deposit account in the name of the defendant;

On December 28, 2006, HB deposited 00 won in the Bank’s account under the name of the Defendant, the Defendant, as the check, and deposited 000 won in the Korea Investment Securities Account of the Co., Ltd., and 00 won on January 2, 2007, and 100 million won on January 8, 2007, respectively, in the above Korea Investment Securities Account under the Defendant’s name.

(c) the debtor's financial status of the BB;

On December 28, 2006, HB deposited money in the deposit account under the name of the defendant, the HB did not own any other property except 716,210,000 won of deposit claims on which the above purchase amount was deposited.

2. Revocation of the Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritimes Maritime Maritime Maritimes Maritime Maritimes

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

In principle, a claim that can be protected by a creditor's right of revocation should have arisen before doing a juristic act for the purpose of property rights with the knowledge that it would prejudice the creditor, but it is highly probable that the claim is established at the time of the juristic act, and that the claim is created in the near future in the near future, and its probability has been realized in the near future (Supreme Court Decision 2002Da42957 Decided November 8, 2002). The capital gains tax obligation is established at the end of the taxable period, and it is difficult for BB to pay the price for the disposal of the land in this case, and it is highly probable that BB's abstract tax liability has been established at the trial court until the 60th day of December 31, 206, and that it is probable that BB would have been established at the time when it was first deposited in the deposit account in the name of the defendant, and that it is not probable that it would have been established at the time when it was made.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

1) The parties' assertion

The plaintiff, and HB made a donation to the defendant by withdrawing the deposit, which is the only property in excess of the debt, and depositing it into the deposit account in the name of the defendant and the securities account, and each donation to the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that it does not constitute a fraudulent act merely because it is difficult for the defendant to conduct financial transactions due to bad credit standing from HB, and that it was delivered to HB after opening a securities account and deposit account in the name of the defendant, and that it is merely a delivery of the passbook and seal to HB.

2) Determination as to the assertion

Under the Real Name Financial System, the real name verification procedure of the deposit title holder is conducted according to the intention of the deposit title holder, and the deposit account holder who is not the deposit title holder may be deemed the party to the deposit contract, and the deposit contract shall be limited to extremely exceptional cases with the clear agreement between the deposit title holder and the contributor of the deposit contract by denying the right to request the return of the deposit under the deposit title holder after undergoing the real name verification procedure, and by concluding the deposit contract with the contributor, etc., the deposit account shall be attributed to the defendant under the name of the defendant, unless there is any evidence that the defendant has been found to have accrued the right to request the return of the deposit under the name of 208Da45828, and if there is no evidence that the defendant's deposit account would be sufficient to reverse the probative value of the deposit contract in accordance with the Real Name Financial Transactions Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da45828, Mar. 1, 209).

3) Determination as to the defendant's additional master place and the defendant's additional master place

As between February 11, 1993 and April 5, 2006, the defendant, while lending real estate purchase funds, etc. to B, deposited KRW 000 in total with the passbook in the name of B, her husband KimG and her husband, Kim H, Kim H, but not being paid KRW 000 among them, the defendant transferred KRW 00 from HaB on December 28, 2006 to the Bank's deposit account in the name of the defendant, and this does not constitute a fraudulent act. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant lent 00 won in total to HaB, and HaBB did not recognize that the defendant donated 00 won to HaB on December 28, 2006, and there was no reason to recognize that the defendant paid the above 00 won, and there was no reason to recognize that the above 00 won was paid by HaB.

(c) Minimum and restitution of fraudulent act;

If so, all the gift contracts entered into in order to remit 000 won to four times as seen earlier between YB and the Defendant constitute a fraudulent act, and their revocation shall not be exempted, and according to the purport of the entire arguments in this case, it can be recognized that the money deposited in the above deposit account and the securities system in the name of the Defendant was withdrawn and consumed. If so, it is impossible to restore the original return method following the cancellation of fraudulent act, so, it is impossible to restore the original return method, so the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following the date the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

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