in excess of debt, if the gift was made to another person, it constitutes a fraudulent act.

If a debtor donated his/her own property to another person under excess of his/her obligation, such act constitutes a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances.

2013Du100951 Revocation of fraudulent act

Korea

1. NewA 2. GaB

December 18, 2013

January 24, 2014

1. The name and address of the Defendant New A and ParkCC (OO-O-OO-OOOOO: O1-gil 97 DDD apartment B-300, each of which was entered into on December 16, 2011, is revoked.

2. Defendant New A shall pay to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to 5% per annum from the day following this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. The gift agreement concluded on December 27, 201 between Defendant ParkB and ParkCC is revoked with respect to the O-Myeon O-type O-7-37 forest land of 802 square meters between Defendant ParkB and ParkCC.

4. Defendant ParkB shall comply with the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 87894, Dec. 27, 2011, with respect to the OO-type O-type 7-37 forest land and 802 square meters to Park PCC, O-type O-type O-type O-type O-type O-type 802 square meters.

5. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

(a) Details on taxes in arrears of ParkCC;

The details of taxes (total OO) not paid by ParkCC to the Plaintiff are as listed below:

See Table 2-3 of the Court Decision

(b) Cash donation from ParkCC to Defendant NewA;

On November 14, 201, 201, ParkCC sold OO 7-19 Forest 80 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m206 m20 m206 m20 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m200 m20 m200 m20 m20 m20 m20 m200 m200 to

(c) Donation of real estate to Defendant ParkB by ParkCC;

On December 27, 2011, ParkCC donated OO O 7-37 forest land of 802 square meters to Defendant ParkB, and this court completed the registration of transfer of ownership of Defendant ParkB’s name on the ground of an OO O O 7-37 forest land of 802 square meters.

(d) The status of the property of ParkCC at the time of each disposal act;

See Table 3-4 see Decision 3-4

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) Occurrence of preserved claims;

1) In principle, a claim that may be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation needs to be, in principle, arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be deemed a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that at the time of a fraudulent act, there exists a legal relationship that is the basis of the establishment of a claim, and that the claim is established in the near future, and where a claim has been created by realizing the probability in the near future, such claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da76426, Feb. 23, 2012).

2) In the instant case, the Plaintiff’s respective tax claims against ParkCC had already occurred or had already occurred prior to each act of disposal as set forth in subparagraph 1-B and (c) above, and there was a high probability as to the effect that ParkCC did not pay taxes to the Plaintiff before each act of disposal as set forth in subparagraph 1-B and (c) and that it would be liable for each of the above obligations in the near future. Accordingly, each of the Plaintiff’s respective tax claims may be the preserved claim of revocation.

(b) Fraudulent act and intent to commit suicide;

1) According to the facts found in Paragraph (d) above, ParkCC had already been absent from the status of excess at the time of each gift contract as described in Paragraph (1)-B, and Paragraph (c), and if a debtor donated his/her own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, such act constitutes a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da28686, May 31, 2007).

2) In addition, ParkCC seems to have known that it would cause damage to the Plaintiff, a creditor, due to the decrease in common security of creditors, and the Defendants’ bad faith, a beneficiary, is presumed.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, with respect to the OOwon concluded on December 16, 201 between Defendant New A and ParkCC, and the gift agreement concluded on December 27, 2011 between Defendant LbB and ParkCC on OO, with respect to OO-type O-type O-type O-type 7-37 forest land and 802 square meters between Defendant LbCC, shall be revoked as a fraudulent act. As such, Defendant LbB is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following the conclusion of this judgment to the day of full payment. Defendant LbB is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer that was completed on December 27, 201 by this Court Asan Registry and its registry.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim is well-grounded, it is decided as per Disposition.