beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.11.19 2020가단309353

사해행위취소

Text

The gift contract concluded on January 22, 2019 between the Defendant and B is KRW 96,86,450.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As of January 22, 2019, the Plaintiff has each of the following taxation claims against B as to the Plaintiff’s taxation claims against B.

(unit: source)

B. At the time of January 22, 2019, B entered into a donation agreement with the Defendant, who was his/her spouse, to donate the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant donation agreement”). As to the instant real estate, Busan District Court’s Busan District Court’s registration office received on February 7, 2019, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name as the ground of the instant donation under Article 5713.

C. The current status of B’s property at the time of entering into the instant gift agreement is as follows.

The fact that Busan District Court's active property of KRW 170 million (as of January 1, 2019) deposit claims of KRW 807,125,000 deposit claims of KRW 40,000 deposit claims of KRW 40,000,000 deposit claims of KRW 97,392,060 (based on recognition) does not dispute the Plaintiff's tax liability of KRW 97,392,060 (based on recognition), entry in Gap evidence 1 through 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The establishment of a fraudulent act and intention of deception 1) The fraudulent act, which is the requirement for the creditor's right of revocation, may be established not only where the debtor has already been in excess of his/her obligation prior to disposal of the property, but also where the debtor has been placed in excess of his/her obligation due to the act in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da68808, Apr. 29, 2005). According to the above facts acknowledged, B is judged to have reached an excess of his/her obligation by entering into the gift contract in this case. Thus, the above acts in B constitute a fraudulent act as detrimental to the interests of other creditors, including the plaintiff, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed to have been presumed to have been presumed to have been committed by B and the defendant's act in bad faith.