agreement on the division of inherited property that renounces its share of inheritance in excess of debt constitutes a fraudulent act.

The agreement on division of inherited property constitutes a fraudulent act if the agreement on division of inherited property gives up one's own inheritance shares in excess of the obligation subject to the exercise of the right to revoke the fraudulent act, and the assertion that the special profit is not a fraudulent act exceeding the specific share of inheritance is without merit as there is no evidence

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration to Original State

2016 Ghana 151565 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Red○ ○

May 16, 2017

May 30, 2017

1. The agreement on the division of inherited property concluded on March 24, 2014 between the defendant and the non-party gambling ○○ (***************) on 2/7 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the restoration of real name with respect to the share of 2/7 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Gab○○○.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Park○-○ is liable to pay a total of KRW 111,159,060, including value-added tax (the final payment deadline is November 30, 2007), and the Plaintiff has a tax claim equivalent to the above delinquent tax amount against Park○-○.

B. On November 5, 2013, Park Dong-dong, the father of Park○-○, owned each real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”).

C. On March 24, 2014, the Defendant, his spouse, and his/her children, agreed on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant division agreement”). Accordingly, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real property due to inheritance due to the same day division.

D. Not only at the time of the instant division consultation, but also up to now, gambling○ is insolvent in which there is no active property.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

(i)The legal doctrine

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

Dod Doz. Whether fraudulent act and revocation

According to the above facts of recognition, a tax claim held by the Plaintiff against Park○-○ constitutes a preserved claim for the obligee’s right of revocation. The instant division agreement constitutes a fraudulent act by Park○-○, an obligor in excess of the obligation, giving up 2/7 shares in inheritance among the instant real estate, thereby causing the decrease in common security for general creditors (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da29307 Decided June 9, 201, cited by the Defendant, is not applicable to this case where co-inheritors, including the debtor, have completed the division agreement on inherited property).

In regard to this, the defendant's assertion that Park○-○ has already obtained a lot of monetary assistance such as donation of KRW 16,000,000 in around June 12, 1997 (Provided, That the defendant claimed KRW 20,000,000 in the reply, etc.), around July 25, 2001, since special benefits of KRW 13,00,000 have already been over specific shares of inheritance, it is difficult to determine the whole specific inherited property, which forms the basis of division of property. The defendant's argument that the above amount of KRW 16,00,000 in the defendant's argument is not clear (for KRW 16,00,000,000, KRW 19,610,000 in the account of Park△-△, etc., and it is difficult to conclude that the money of KRW 160,000 in the above account was deposited in the above account of the defendant's money of KRW 16,000,00.

Therefore, the agreement on the division of this case shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant shall be obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of 2/7 shares out of the real estate in this case to Park○○.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

The defendant asserts that even family members of Park○-○ may not know about the details of delinquency, and thus, it could not be known that the division agreement of this case would prejudice the creditor, so it is bona fide.

On the other hand, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, a creditor who asserts revocation of the debtor's bad faith has the burden of proving that the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is a bad faith, not the creditor, but the beneficiary or the subsequent purchaser is a bad faith. If the debtor's act of disposal of the debtor's property constitutes a fraudulent act, it shall be based on objective and acceptable evidence, etc. when recognizing that the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act or the subsequent purchase, and it shall not be readily concluded that the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act or the subsequent purchase (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da237192, Jun. 11, 2015). The evidence submitted by the defendant alone cannot be viewed as having any other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant had no knowledge that it would prejudice the creditor at the time of the agreement on division of the case, and there is no reason to deem otherwise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.