2013 Ghana 807294 Revocation of fraudulent act

Korea 1

** *

October 30, 2015

November 20, 2015

1. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the termination contract for the title trust concluded on December 5, 2012 between 000 and the Defendant is revoked, and B. The Defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the transfer of ownership, which was completed on December 5, 2012 with the Daegu District Court 00 registry office 0000, and completed on December 5, 2012.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s taxation claim (1) 000 against the Plaintiff’s 000 entered into a sales contract between the Plaintiff’s * on December 29, 2005 ** 000, 00, 000, 000, 000,000, 650,000,000 for the land and its ground, and 650,000,000 for the land and its ground buildings owned by 00. The subsequent 00,000 for the above 00,000 - for the land and its ground buildings on December 29, 2005 30, 000 - for the above 000,000-dong and its ground buildings on the 30,000 and its ground buildings on the above 00-dong and its ground.

***** the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the future of MaMaMaMa MaMaMaMa MaMaMaMaMa, 200. Nevertheless, on February 6, 2006, the head of the Dong-gu District Tax Office reduced the transfer value of each of the above real estate to 320,000,000 won and made a preliminary return of capital gains tax on the actual market price. (3) The head of the Dong-gu Tax Office conducted a transfer income tax investigation on 00 and Ma MaMa from September 12, 2012 until October 20, 2012, 00 and 00, 60, 600, MaMaMa MaMa MaMa MaMa Ma Ma, 50, 100, 60, 600, 60, 600, 600, 600, 60, 201, 10, 2015.

(5) On November 14, 2013, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the request for adjudication by 000, which is dissatisfied with the above disposition. On September 19, 2014, the first instance court dismissed the request by 000 for revocation of the above disposition, and the appellate court dismissed the appeal by 000 on April 17, 2015. (6) At the present time, the final appeal is in progress. On the other hand, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the name of A on the grounds of sale on February 16, 2011, and thereafter the registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the name of B and C on the grounds of sale on August 22, 2012.

B. The relation between 000 and the defendant

00 and the defendant are married couple who completed the marriage report on June 29, 1978.

C. The ownership change (1) 000 on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) is about the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”).

11. On March 26, 2009, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale. (2) After 000, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of the cancellation of title trust on December 5, 2012 with respect to the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant termination contract”) and on the ground of the termination of title trust on December 5, 2012, the Daegu District Court 00 registration office received on December 5, 2012 (hereinafter “instant transfer of ownership”).

he completed the work.

D. The financial status (1) 000 of 000 is paid monthly 2,683,310 won (as of September 2013) as pension after retirement from school on September 4, 199.

(2) At the time of the conclusion of the instant contract for the termination of title trust, the Plaintiff was obligated to return KRW 189,809,060 and KRW 150,00,000 for the instant apartment, other than the instant apartment, which is the only real estate owned by 000, as well as the instant apartment, ( = 1,019,019,559 + Nonghyup Bank + KRW 1,505,087). On the other hand, the Plaintiff was obligated to return KRW 189,80,060 for the instant apartment, and KRW 150,00,000 for the instant apartment.

[Grounds for Recognition] No dispute exists, Gap 1 through 9, 12, 17, 18, 20, 21, 27, 29 through 32, Eul 1, and 27, each of the statements in the evidence (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1, and 27, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, ① the transfer of real estate, which is a legal relation that serves as the basis for establishing the Plaintiff’s tax (transfer income tax) claim against 00 prior to the conclusion of the instant title trust contract, and the preliminary return of transfer income tax of 000 and the tax investigation thereon were conducted. Since the Plaintiff’s disposition of transfer income tax was taken on December 10, 201, when five days have passed after the conclusion of the instant title trust termination contract, the Plaintiff’s tax claim becomes a preserved claim against the obligee’s right of revocation, and ② the Plaintiff’s tax claim was concluded with the Defendant, who is the only real estate owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s bad faith is presumed to be presumed to have been omitted in the status of debt or to have been exceeded in the Defendant’s future by completing the instant title trust termination contract and completing the registration of transfer of ownership, and ③ In such case, it is presumed that the Defendant’s intention of 000, the debtor, and the beneficiary’s bad faith is presumed.

Therefore, the instant termination contract on the apartment of this case concluded between 000 and the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act against creditors including the plaintiff, and the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case to restore the original state to its original state. (In addition to the assertion of fraudulent act, the plaintiff asserted that the instant termination contract on the title trust of this case is invalid because it constitutes a false conspiracy with the plaintiff's fraudulent act, but as long as it accepts the plaintiff's assertion on the plaintiff's fraudulent act, the plaintiff's assertion as to the false conspiracy is not determined

B. As to this, the defendant's acquisition of the apartment of this case with the defendant's money and entrusted only the name of the husband, 000 future ownership, and thereafter, the defendant, the title truster, transferred the ownership of the apartment of this case from 000, the title truster, to the effect that the act does not constitute a fraudulent act.

Pursuant to Article 830(1) of the Civil Act, real estate acquired by one spouse in the name of his/her own name during the marriage shall be presumed to be the unique property of the nominal owner. Therefore, in order to reverse such presumption, the other spouse ought to prove that the other spouse actually assumed the consideration for the relevant real estate and acquired it in order to substantially own such real estate. In this case, the mere fact that the other spouse is the source of the purchase fund does not necessarily mean that there was a title trust on the relevant real estate, and it does not mean that there was a title trust on the relevant real estate by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances revealed through the relevant evidence, whether the other spouse has borne the consideration for the real possession of the relevant real estate. In particular, where it is difficult to recognize this fact by other evidence, it is difficult to deem that a title trust existed solely on the ground that the other spouse, other than the nominal owner, was the source of the purchase fund (Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du8068 Decided September 25, 2008; 2010Da3010.

46329, Supreme Court Decision 2013Da49572 Decided October 31, 2013, etc.

In the above facts, there is no dispute, or the following circumstances are acknowledged as comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings in the evidence Nos. 10, 11, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 through 14, and 17, and (1) a contract with a construction company of the Geumst century on May 11, 2006 that the apartment of this case is sold to KRW 296,00,000,000, and on the ground of this, the registration of transfer of ownership on March 26, 2009 was completed with respect to the apartment of this case; (2) out of the above sales price, the first down payment of KRW 15,00,000,000, and the down payment of KRW 14,60,000, and the payment date of intermediate payment of KRW 16,000,000,000,000 for each of the above apartment of this case was made under the name of each of the parties.

1. 22. The third part payment date is May 21, 2007, and the fourth part payment date is September 21, 2007, and the fifth part payment date is February 21, 2008, and the sixth part payment date is June 20, 2008).

(3)00 of 000 paid as a loan from a national bank, a corporation

18. The defendant's lease of KRW 100,00,00 to 0, and ④ on February 11, 2009, the defendant purchased 130,00,000 from the defendant's Samsung Securities Account with cashier's checks (one cashier's checks of KRW 100,00,00, three cashier's checks of KRW 10,00,00), and the defendant's transfer of 50,00,000 from the defendant's Daegu Bank Account to 0's 0,00,000's 70,000,000,000 won, which was the above 0,000's 7,00,000,000 won of the above apartment bonds, and it is difficult to conclude that the above 0,000,000 won of the above apartment bonds and the above 30,000,00 won of the money transferred to 30,006,00 won of the above apartment bonds.

3. Conclusion

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

The standards for the nature of judge;