logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2020.02.05 2019가단33490
사해행위취소
Text

1. As to shares of 1/3 of the real estate listed in Appendix 1: (a)

Defendant A and B were concluded on October 30, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B, from June 29, 2010 to December 16, 2014, operated a merchandise coupon trading business under the trade name “C”, and underreporting the tax base on global income tax, etc. accrued from 2011 to 2012, and thus, was notified of the global income tax indicated as follows on February 10, 2015.

As of June 27, 2019, the delinquent amount of national taxes in B as of June 27, 2019 is stated as follows:

B. The decedent D died on April 9, 2018, and there was a defendant, B, and E, an inheritor.

C. On October 30, 2018, the above inheritors entered into an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant agreement on division”) under the Defendant’s sole ownership with respect to the attached list 1 through 3 real estate owned by the network (hereinafter “instant 1 through 3 real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name on November 1, 2018.

B was in excess of the debt without any property at the time of the instant split-off consultation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6 evidence (including paper numbers), Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff’s above national tax claim against B was already incurred prior to the instant division consultation, and thus, the obligee’s right of revocation becomes the preserved claim.

In addition, even in cases where a debtor in excess of his/her obligation has already renounced his/her right to his/her inherited property by giving up his/her right to his/her inherited property in consultation on division, and thus joint collateral against a general creditor has decreased, as a matter of principle, it constitutes a fraudulent act against a creditor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007). The instant agreement on division that a debtor had acquired to the defendant by giving up his/her right to each of the instant real estate while in excess of his/her obligation

arrow