The assertion that trust was made in the name of the real estate of this case is not acceptable.

The act of disposing of the real estate of this case to the defendant, who is the punishment of this case, while ParkA had not paid national taxes, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor of this case, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be also presumed, so the sales contract of this case must be revoked.

2013 Ghana 160882 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Ansan ○

May 27, 2014

June 24, 2014

1. The purchase and sale contract on November 7, 2008 between the defendant and the non-party Park Jong-A on real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration made on November 7, 2008 by the Daegu District Court 00 registry office with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

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. The Plaintiff holds a tax claim amounting to KRW 000,000, total value-added tax and global income tax, against the non-party in arrears, as indicated below, and the said ParkA has not fulfilled the above tax liability.

B. On the other hand, on November 7, 2008, Park Jong-A prepared a contract to sell real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the instant real estate") to the Defendant, who is the convict thereof, on the same day (hereinafter referred to as "the instant contract"), and on the same day, the Daegu District Court 00 registry office of November 7, 2008 received as No. 19640 on November 7, 2008, and completed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership of the instant real estate.

C. At the time that the above ParkA disposes of the instant real property to the Defendant, the above ParkA had no particular property, and rather was liable for tax liability equivalent to KRW 000 against the Plaintiff.

【Unsatisfy-applicable dispute for recognition】 Fact, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Since the act of disposing of the instant real estate to the Defendant, who is a punishment of the instant real estate, while ParkA had not paid national taxes, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the obligee of the ParkA, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to have been presumed, the instant sales contract should be revoked.

Shed Defendant’s argument

The Defendant’s husband was ParkB, and the instant real estate was owned by ParkB, the husband of ParkB, who is the Plaintiff of ParkB. Around January 1988, ParkB transferred the instant real estate to ParkB, the Defendant’s husband. At the time, ParkB had already been holding one apartment house located at 000 hours, and only purchased the instant real estate under the name of ParkB, which was unmarried and non-resident at the time of obtaining private consent. Therefore, even though the owner of the instant real estate was registered as ParkB, the actual owner was not only ParkB but also the instant real estate was not owned by ParkB. Therefore, the said ParkB’s selling of the instant real estate to the Defendant is not a decrease in the liability property of ParkB. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. Determination

In this regard, the facts that the original SDR had completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant real estate as the owner of the instant real estate, and that SDR had completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate to Park around October 1997, as the owner of the instant real estate, are not disputed between the parties, according to the above facts of recognition, ParkA shall be presumed to be the owner of the instant real estate.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that ParkB is not the owner of the above real estate, and that ParkB was merely a trust of ParkB with the consent of DoD when purchasing the above real estate from DoD, and that ParkB was merely a party to the above real estate. Thus, Park Jong-A had testified consistent with the above argument by the defendant. However, as seen earlier, Park Jong-A was a witness who completed the registration of ownership transfer of the above real estate to the defendant, and the defendant was a party to the above ParkbB's denial of the above Park Jong-A's punishment, it is difficult to believe the testimony as it is. Rather, considering the above evidence and evidence, the above evidence and evidence, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 111, and 13 evidence, 3, 9, 10, 10, 10, 113, 2, 19, 2, 2, 97, 19, 2, 97, 19, 2, 10, 9, 9, 2, 9, 1.

In full view of these facts recognized as a whole, Park Jae-chul did not merely receive the transfer registration of ownership of the instant real estate, but was registered as an obligor for the right to collateral security that was loaned under the name of DoD; ParkB claimed that the said real estate was paid to DoD during the period from November 28, 1997 to December 14, 199; however, the instant case asserted that the ECE Credit Cooperatives’s loans to Ga on the instant real estate had already been repaid on January 6, 1998; that it was already repaid on January 6, 1998; that other than GaB transferred money to DoD; in full view of the fact that no objective evidence exists to deem that DoB paid the purchase price of the instant real estate to DoD, the allegation that ParkB made the instant real estate under the name of Do Governor cannot be recognized.

The conclusion of the instant sales contract with the content that ParkA sells the instant real property owned by it to the Defendant in excess of its obligation is to reduce the property of ParkA’s responsible, and it constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, who is the obligee of ParkA, and it is deemed that ParkA had such intent. In addition, since the Defendant, who is the convict of ParkA, is presumed to have acted in bad faith as to this point, the instant sales contract should be revoked.

Therefore, on November 7, 2008, the sales contract between the defendant and the non-party ParkA on the instant real estate between the defendant and the non-party ParkA was revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed by the Daegu District Court 00 registry office No. 19604 on November 7, 2008, to the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.