2. BB

3. CCC;

2. The Defendants shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of each real name with respect to one-fourths of each of the lands listed in the separate sheet to DDR.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. DDR unpaid total of KRW 437,137,810, including capital gains tax and additional dues (the first due date for payment is October 31, 2009), while the Plaintiff has a claim equivalent to the above unpaid tax amount against DDR.

B. EE, the father of DD, owned 1/2 of the shares of each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "land of this case"), and died.

C. The heir of the EE had DD and the Defendants, their children, but DD and the Defendants agreed to divide the instant shares owned by the EE on November 27, 2014, with the content that the Defendants inherited one-third shares, respectively (hereinafter “instant contract”).

D. At the time of the instant contract, DD is a insolvent state with no active property until now.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

The agreement on the division of inherited property is to confirm the reversion of inherited property by either having all or part of the inherited property owned by each inheritor as a sole ownership or having been performed as a new co-ownership relationship with respect to the inherited property which has already been temporarily owned by co-inheritors after the commencement of inheritance, and therefore, it is the legal act aimed at property rights in its nature. Therefore, it may be subject to the exercise of the right to revoke a fraudulent act. Meanwhile, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the act that the debtor sells real property, which is one of his own property, and alters it with or gratuitously transfers it to another person, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, even in cases where the joint security against the general creditor has decreased by waiver of the right to his/her share of inherited property upon consultation on the division of inherited property (see, e.g., Supreme Court

Examining the facts found in accordance with the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff’s claims against DD are subject to the obligee’s right of revocation. The instant contract constitutes a fraudulent act on the ground that DD, the obligor in excess of its obligation, renounced its right to share of shares in this case, thereby reducing the joint collateral against general creditors.

Therefore, the instant contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act. Accordingly, the Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of the restoration of their authentic names with respect to one-fourths of each of the shares owned by the Defendants among the land in this case.

B. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

The Defendants asserted that this case’s contract was bona fide, because they could not be known that it would prejudice the obligee.

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, although a creditor has the burden of proving the debtor's bad faith, the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is not a creditor, but is responsible to prove the fact that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is a bad faith. In a case where the debtor's act of disposal of the debtor's property constitutes a fraudulent act, the evidence, etc. that can be objectively and objectively satisfied should be established when recognizing that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser was the bona fide person at the time of the fraudulent act or the preceding act. It cannot be readily concluded that the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser was the bona fide person at the time of the fraudulent act or the subsequent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da237192, Jun. 11, 2015).

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendants could not know the fact that the instant contract would prejudice the creditor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit. The Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

① Defendant AA is the same as DD, and Defendant BB and CCC are the same as DD.

② DD received financial support from the parents on June 21, 200, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 21, 200. However, DD invested considerable money in a venture business around that time. However, DD has invested in a venture business by borrowing money from FFF in the course of such investment, but it was the wind that the investor went back to the failure, but did not have to dispose of the said apartment x (20). It is difficult to view that the Defendants were unaware of the fact that the said apartment purchased with the parent’s help was disposed of. Even according to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants were well aware of the developments and developments leading up to the purchase or disposal of the said apartment x x x x x x x x x x dD’s debts related thereto.

③ FF demanded the Seoul Gangnam-gu Newdong owned under the joint name of DD and Defendant BB, CCC, and GGG, the mother of DD, to transfer land and buildings x x x x x x x x x FF’s debt security against DD. In response, Defendant BB and CCC transferred its share to FF.

④ The Plaintiff’s claim against DD is a claim related to the transfer income tax arising from the transfer process under the above (3).

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.