The agreement on division of the inherited property of this case constitutes a fraudulent act.

In principle, the debtor who has already been in excess of his/her obligation is guilty of fraudulent act against the creditor even if the joint security against the general creditor has decreased by giving up his/her right to his/her share of inheritance while holding a divided agreement

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act and Restoration to Original State)

2017 Ghana 66339 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

○○

on October 02, 2018

on October 23, 2018

1. As to shares 2/13 of the real estate listed in the Schedule,

A. The agreement on the division of inherited property concluded on April 14, 2017 between the Defendant and the relevant △△△△△, shall be revoked.

B. The defendant shall execute the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of the recovery of real name in the name of the debtor.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The relevant △△△△ is delinquent in the value-added tax, business income tax, global income tax, etc. for the Plaintiff from 2010 to 2016 as listed in the following table:

B. The deceased △△△△△△ (the deceased on December 5, 2016, hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) is between the deceased and the deceased, his spouse.

The Defendant, Madle, △△, △△, U.S. E., and the ▽▽△ was a child.

As the deceased died, the inheritors of the deceased shall list on April 14, 2017 the attached list, which is the inherited property of the deceased.

On April 19, 2017, the agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement on division of inherited property") was entered into with the defendant's sole inheritance of the mentioned real estate (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case"). On April 19, 2017, the agreement on division of real property of this case was entered into as the ground for registration.

C. At the time of the conclusion of the instant agreement on the division of agreement, △△△ was merely KRW 453 million with active property and was in excess of debt.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 16, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Whether a fraudulent act was committed

In principle, even if a debtor in excess of his/her obligation gives up his/her right to his/her inherited property while holding a divided agreement on inherited property, and thus the joint security against the general creditor has decreased, it constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007)

According to the facts acknowledged above, △△△△ in excess of debt was an agreement for the consultation division in this case to waive 2/13 shares out of the real estate of this case, which is the property inherited from the deceased, and it is reasonable to view this as a fraudulent act committed with the intent to prejudice general creditors, including the plaintiff, and further, the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be a beneficiary.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

The defendant asserts to the effect that, at the time of acquiring the real estate of this case, the deceased was responsible for the 43 million won, and the other inheritors gave up their rights to their inheritance shares in consideration of the deceased's support, the agreement on the division of agreement of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act, and the defendant acquired the real estate of this case with his own contribution to the acquisition of the real estate of this case and with his legitimate intent to acquire the support of the deceased's parents, and that the agreement on the division of this case was concluded in good faith without knowing the debts owed by the

In light of the purport of Article 108-2(1) of the Civil Act, even if the Defendant’s assertion that the agreement for division of agreement in this case included consultation with the Defendant to recognize the contributory portion, if the inheritor agreed to some inheritors against the purport of Article 1008-2(1) of the Civil Act, such agreement would also be subject to revocation by obligee. According to the purport of Articles 3 and 4 of the Civil Act, the Defendant borne KRW 43 million at the time when the Deceased acquired the instant real estate. The Defendant, around July 2016, entered the deceased’s house located in the Gowon-gun, Gowon-gun, Gowon-gun, and Gowon-gun, and the entire purport of oral argument by the witness, was to accept that the Defendant had resided from the lessee of the instant real estate from around April 2010 to the date of death, and there is no need to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion that the sum of the deceased’s share in inheritance was beyond 4890,000,000 won or less.

(c) Methods of reinstatement;

A creditor may seek direct performance of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer against a beneficiary, who acquired ownership by law, instead of seeking cancellation of registration in the name of the beneficiary by means of restitution due to revocation of fraudulent act (Supreme Court Decision 9Da53704 delivered on February 25, 200).

Therefore, as a result of the cancellation of fraudulent act, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the 2/13 shares, which are inheritance shares of the relevant real estate, among the real estate in this case, to the relevant △△△.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.