Daegu District Court Kimcheon-2015-Ban-31014 ( November 12, 2015)

The gift of this case constitutes a fraudulent act and must be revoked.

If the defendant asserts that the donation of this case is bona fide but the defendant's bad faith is recognized, the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary, and the defendant must prove that he is bona fide.

Daegu District Court 2015Na310177 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

〇〇〇

May 25, 2016

June 22, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The supplementary intervenor’s intervenor’s participation in the costs of appeal, and the remainder, respectively, by the Defendant.

shall be borne.

1. Purport of claim

The contract of donation concluded on October 22, 2013 with respect to 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and AA shall be revoked. The Defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by the ○ District Court ○○○○ registry ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, and the reasoning for this Court’s decision is the same as that for the first instance court’s decision, except for the repair or addition of the pertinent parts. As such, this Court’s reasoning is cited by the main text of Article 420

1) Of the judgment of the court of first instance, “BB” is written by both the Defendant joining the Defendant.

2) On October 22, 2013, the first instance court's decision No. 3, 2010, "No. 22, 2010."

3) On the fourth 17th 17th sony decision of the first instance court, the following shall be followed:

In addition, considering that the Defendant’s Intervenor’s assertion that the Defendant was aware of the mother of AA and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of joint title with respect to the instant real estate, and that the shares of AA were not transferred to the Defendant’s Intervenor, and that the Defendant was transferred to the Defendant, the Defendant’s and the Intervenor’s assertion of title trust

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be accepted.

As the conclusion is justified, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The decision shall be rendered as above.