Real estate donation act constitutes a fraudulent act and a witness also knew that the fact and the claim of a delinquent taxpayer are infringed.

The witness was aware of the fact that the creditor was unable to satisfy the claim due to the fraudulent act at the time that he predicted the disposition on default of the delinquent taxpayer and donated it to the witness of his person, and that the witness also knew that the real estate donation was a fraudulent act and that the claim of the delinquent taxpayer was infringed.

2012 Ghana 506387 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

XX

Pleadings without Oral Proceedings

September 7, 2012

1. The contract of donation concluded on March 16, 2012 between the defendant and the non-party KimA is revoked.

2. The Defendant shall implement the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on March 20, 2012 by the receipt No. 3647, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to Nonparty KimA.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

Grounds of Claim

1. Claims for preservation;

The plaintiff's taxation claims are as follows:

(The following table omitted):

On October 2011, 201, Nonparty KimA transferred XX Dong-dong 000-00 and reported capital gains tax not to pay transfer income tax. Nonparty A shall notify the Plaintiff (competent regional tax office) of his/her taxation on November 18, 201 from the Seo-gu Seoul District Tax Office and notify the Plaintiff (competent regional tax office) of his/her taxation on November 18, 201, and did not pay the notice of payment on October 01, 201, but did not pay it to his/her arrears (see, e.g., the Council for Review as to Non-Party A’s 1-1 or 1-4 arrears).

2. Fraudulent act;

In the event of default as described in paragraph 1, the non-party KimA predicted that the property will be seized due to the plaintiff's disposition on default. On March 16, 2012, the contract of donation on the date (hereinafter referred to as "the real property of this case") stated in the attached Table (hereinafter referred to as "the real property of this case") was made to the Youngbu District Court of Gwangju by No. 3647, Oct. 203, 2012, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the defendant Eul who was the defendant of the non-party Kim Dong-B (refer to the evidence No.

3. The intention of an injury.

A. Bad faith of Nonparty KimA

Nonparty KimA predicted the Plaintiff’s disposition on default on the instant real estate, and knew that at the time of donation to his own Defendant SeoB, the obligee would not be able to obtain satisfaction of the claim due to the said fraudulent act.

B. The Non-Party KimA’s insolvent

(i)affirmative property;

At the time of donation of the instant real estate on March 20, 2012, Nonparty KimA’s active property is 000 won in total according to the current data list, such as delinquent property, which is computerized data of the National Tax Service (see Section 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 3-1, 3).

(2) Petty property

As the Plaintiff’s claim amounting to KRW 000, Nonparty KimA, as the Plaintiff’s taxation claim amounting to KRW 00,000, Nonparty KimA donated the instant real estate in excess of the debt amount ( KRW 000 - KRW 000) to reduce the liability property amounting to KRW 00, thereby preventing the obligee’s claims, including the Plaintiff.

4. Bad faith of the defendant

(a) Defendant SB’s bad faith;

Defendant SeoB has been aware of the fact that the instant real estate donation was a fraudulent act and that the Plaintiff’s claim was infringed. (See the evidence No. 3 of family relation certificate)

5. Insufficient;

In light of the above facts, the transfer of ownership due to the gift of the instant real estate by Nonparty KimA to Defendant SAB constitutes a fraudulent act by knowing that it would prejudice the obligee, and the Defendant was also aware of such fact and received the gift of the instant real estate. Therefore, in order to restore the instant real estate to its original state, I requested to seek the cancellation of the transfer of ownership due to the gift made in the future by the Defendant