act of transferring a claim for construction cost, which is the sole property of the delinquent to his or her wife, constitutes a fraudulent act.

It constitutes a fraudulent act with knowledge that the transfer of a claim for construction cost, the only property of which is one of the general creditors including the Plaintiff, even though the transfer of a claim exceeds a debt without any particular active property at the time of the transfer of a claim, constitutes a fraudulent act with knowledge that the transfer of a claim is to reduce the liability property of the general creditors including the Plaintiff

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2014 Gohap 16339 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Kim △△△

December 17, 2014

January 14, 2015

1. The assignment of claims between the Defendant and the Gangwon △△△△△△ on March 8, 2013, which was entered into on the separate sheet, shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall notify this △△△△ of the cancellation of the assignment of claims under paragraph (1).

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Conclusion of a construction contract between Gangnam △△ and this △△△

(1) On February 18, 2012, Gangwon-do △△△△△△△, concluded a construction contract with the pertinent △△△△△△△△△△ for a fixed period of 120 days from March 2012 to June 2012 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

(2) The △△△△△ has paid KRW 000 to the Gangwon-do △△△△△△ for the construction cost based on the construction contract.

(b) Transfer of claims;

On March 8, 2013, Gangwon △△△△ transferred the construction cost claim and damages for delay thereof (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction cost claim”) to the Defendant, who is one of its wife on March 8, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “△△△△△△”), and on the same day, notified the instant transfer of the said claim to the △△△△△△△△△△△ on the same day, and notified the said transfer of

C. The national tax in arrears of the Gangwon △△△;

The Gangwon △△△△ was delinquent in national taxes and additional charges, including the following value-added tax and global income tax, at the time of transferring the assignment of the instant case.

(d) The insolvency of the Gangwon △△△;

The Gangwon △△△△△ had no particular active property in addition to the instant claim for the construction cost of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4 (if there is an additional number, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

The transfer of the instant construction cost claim, the sole property of which the Gangwon △△△ was delinquent in national taxes, constitutes a fraudulent act and thus constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the assignment contract of this case must be revoked.

B. Defendant

The Defendant, as a joint and several surety of the Gangwon △△△△△△, subrogated for KRW 000 of the loans owed by the Gangwon △△△△△△△△ to the Defendant for the purpose of repaying the indemnity liability against the Defendant, and thus, does not constitute a fraudulent act.

3. Determination

A. Formation of preserved claims

According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Gangwon △△△△ at the time of transferring the instant transfer of the right to revoke the obligee’s right to revoke the Plaintiff’s national tax claim amounting to KRW 000,00, and thus, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned national tax claim against Gangwon △△△△

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

(1) In a case where a debtor’s act of reducing liability property causes or deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors, whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the importance of the debtor’s entire responsible property among the debtor’s property; (b) the degree of insolvency; (c) the economic purpose of a juristic act; (d) the reasonableness of the act in question, which is the means of its realization; (e) the reasonableness of the act in question; and (e) the degree of awareness of the parties as to the risks of lack of common security, such as the existence of the debtor’s and the beneficiary’s collusion; and (e) whether the act may ultimately be considered as an act detrimental to general creditors. Unlike the case where a debtor in excess of liability owed to some of the creditors, the act of transferring claims and other active property, other than the original purpose of the debt performance, may constitute a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors; (e) in such a case, the act can only be deemed as an act detrimental to general creditors in light of the general judgment criteria as seen above, thereby establishing a fraudulent act (see, 13.

(2) As seen earlier, the fact that △△△△△ was in excess of the obligation without any particular active property at the time of transferring the instant claim concerning the instant case. As long as △△△△△ transferred the instant construction cost claim, which is one of its sole property, to its own wife even though it exceeded the obligation as above, barring any special circumstance, the instant transfer contract constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge of the fact that it reduces the liability property of the general creditors including the Plaintiff, which is the joint security of the general creditors, and further, it is presumed that the Defendant’s intent is the beneficiary.

(3) As to this, the Defendant alleged that the transfer of the instant claim was made for the repayment of the obligation to the Defendant by Gangwon △△△△△, it is not a fraudulent act. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the transfer of the instant claim was made for the repayment of the obligation to the Defendant. Even if the transfer of the instant claim was made for the repayment of the obligation to the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, the transfer of the instant claim for construction payment, which is the only property of the Defendant, which is the sole property of the senior △△△△ in excess of the obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act in principle, and thus

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the assignment contract of this case between the defendant and the Gangnam △△△△△ shall be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to notify the debtor of the instant construction cost claim and the △△△△△△△△△△ of the cancellation of the instant assignment contract

4. Conclusion

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