Since it is not considered as excessive division of property, it does not constitute fraudulent act.

Although transferring money appears to be a division of property following divorce, it cannot be viewed as a fraudulent act on the sole basis of the fact that the person who held the deposit claim at the time paid it as a division of property.

2012Du20028 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

ThisAAA

April 3, 2013

April 17, 2013

1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of lawsuit.

The primary purport of the claim: The defendant cancels the agreement between the defendant and KimO on August 15, 2008, and KRW 000 on August 18, 2008, and KRW 000 on August 21, 2008, and KRW 000 on August 22, 2008, and KRW 000 on August 25, 2008, and KRW 000 on September 7, 2008, and KRW 000 on September 8, 2008, and KRW 00 on September 9, 200, and KRW 00 on September 10, 200 on September 10, 200, and KRW 00 on September 10, 200 on September 12, 200, and the defendant has paid each of the donations to the plaintiff by 00 on September 25, 200.

Preliminary claim: The defendant cancels the contract between the defendant and KimOOO for the amount of KRW 000 on August 15, 2008, KRW 00 on August 18, 2008, KRW 000 on August 21, 2008, KRW 000 on August 22, 2008, KRW 000 on August 25, 2008, and KRW 000 on September 7, 2008, KRW 000 on September 8, 2008, and KRW 00 on September 9, 2008, and KRW 00 on September 10, 200 on September 12, 2008, and KRW 0 on September 10, 200 on each of the following dates, and the defendant has paid each of the donations to the plaintiff within the limit of KRW 00 on September 5, 200, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 31, 2007, KimO owned a building on the ground of 000 Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as "first real estate"), sold the first real estate in KRW 60,000 and KRW 000, and the down payment and KRW 000 were paid on the date of the contract, and the remainder 00 was paid on September 28, 2007.

나. 김OO은 서울 중랑구 000 대 53㎡， 같은 동 000 대 141㎡를 소유하고 있었는데， 위 각 토지(이하 '제2부동산'이라 한다)는 2008. 6. 8. 서울특별시가 협의취득하였다. 서울특별시는 2008. 8. 13. 김OOO에게 제2부동산의 매매대금으로 0000원을 지급하였다.

C. On June 4, 2008, KimOO did not make a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income on the first real estate, and did not pay transfer income tax on the second transferred real estate without filing a return on the tax base of transfer income, and did not pay transfer income tax on the second transferred real estate.

D. As of November 16, 201, the amount of national tax credit as of November 16, 201 against the Plaintiff KimO is the total amount of KRW 32,050,060, and the total amount of capital gains tax and additional tax on the second real estate.

E. The KimOO was married with the defendant on August 17, 2006 and divorced on July 16, 2008.

(f) On September 7, 2008, POO remitted 00 won to the Defendant through the Defendant’s deposit account, POO, and KimO, with KRW 00 on August 15, 2008, and KRW 00 on August 18, 2008, and KRW 00 on August 21, 2008, and KRW 000 on August 22, 2008, and KRW 00 on August 25, 2008, and KRW 00 on September 8, 2008, and KRW 00 on September 9, 200, and KRW 00 on September 10, 2008, and KRW 00 on September 10, 2008.

G. On August 13, 2008, KimOO did not have any property other than the deposit claim (the purchase price of the second real estate is included in KRW 000) against one bank.

[Ground of recognition] The entry and change of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number for those with virtual numbers)

The purpose of the whole theory

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that KimOO gave a total of KRW 000,000 to the defendant, and on the premise that the divorce between KimOO and the defendant is the most complicated, the plaintiff seeks cancellation and restoration of the original status as it constitutes a fraudulent act, and on the premise that the defendant and KimOOO and the defendant are actually shaking, the plaintiff seeks cancellation of the part of the above monetary donation contract which constitutes excessive division of property and restitution of the original status accordingly.

B. Determination

1) Judgment as to the main claim

There is no evidence to prove that the defendant was the most confused with KimOO, and the plaintiff's primary claim based on this premise is without merit without examining the remainder.

2) Determination on the conjunctive claim

Property division according to divorce is a system with the economic difficulty of supporting the other party in terms of liquidation of common property established through mutual cooperation between the parties during marriage, and even if a debtor who has already been married and transferred a certain property to his/her spouse to a division of property, thereby reducing joint security against the general creditor, barring special circumstances to recognize that such division of property is excessive beyond a considerable degree pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, it is not subject to revocation by a creditor as a fraudulent act, and it is not subject to revocation by a creditor, but it is not subject to legitimate property division as far as it exceeds a considerable degree, and there is no burden of proving that it is excessive property division beyond a considerable degree (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da14101, 3000, 2000, 2000O-2857, 2008, 2000O).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's main and ancillary claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.