사해행위취소
1. A donation agreement entered into on July 14, 2016 between D and the Defendant with respect to the real property listed in attached Schedules 1, 2, and 3.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 24, 2015, D did not report capital gains tax after transferring “E and two parcels of land and building outside Korea,” and the head of the Chungcheong District Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control notified D of KRW 722,249,750 on July 1, 2016 as the due date for payment on July 31, 2016.
However, D did not pay the above capital gains tax, and the national tax of KRW 876,173,740 as of November 29, 2017, which was the date of the instant lawsuit, was delinquent.
B. D, on July 14, 2016, donated the real estate indicated in [Attachment List 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) to the Defendant, the grandchildren, and completed each registration of ownership transfer as indicated in the text.
C. D was in excess of the obligation at the time of donation of each of the instant real estate to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 16, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the allegations and the facts of recognition as above, the donation of each of the instant real estate to the Defendant under excess of debt constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the obligee, barring any special circumstance.
Although the Defendant alleged that the gift of each of the instant real estate was unaware of the fact that the gift constitutes a fraudulent act, the beneficiary's malicious intent is presumed in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, and thus, the beneficiary is responsible for proving his/her good faith in order to be exempted from his/her responsibility. The Defendant is a minor, and it is insufficient to reverse the presumption, and there is no other evidence to reverse the presumption.
Thus, the contract of donation between D and the defendant with respect to each real estate of this case shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant shall be obligated to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to each real estate of this case as a result of restitution to original state.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.