채무자의 사해의 의사는 추정되고 이를 매수하거나 순차 이전받은 자에게 악의가 없었다는 점에 관한 입증책임은 그 수익자 또는 전득자에게 있음[국승]
Ansan support-2014-Shap-104389 ( October 18, 2016)
The burden of proving that the debtor's intent to cause harm was presumed, and that the purchaser or the transferee did not bad faith, is against the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser.
(As in the judgment of the court of first instance) The burden of proving that the debtor's intention of deception is presumed, and there was no bad faith to the purchaser or the transferee in succession, is against the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser.
Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act
Seoul High Court 2016Na2017161 Revocation of Fraudulent Act
Korea
EA and one other
Suwon District Court 2014Gahap104389
August 26, 2016
October 21, 2016
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
1. Purport of claim
A. The sales contract concluded on March 1, 2010 with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 between bothCC and 0D, shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 128,189,840, and the sales contract concluded on March 30, 2010 with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 between Annives and Annives, respectively, within the limit of KRW 97,54,690.
B. The Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff 128,189,840 won, Defendant 0B shall pay 97,544,690 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
The reasoning for the judgment in this case is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and such judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the result of each inquiry by the
In light of the result of an order for submission, it is sufficiently recognized that the debtor 0D has been in excess of its obligation by disposing of each of the instant real estate).
Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the appeal by the Defendants is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of grounds.