Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Registration made by the title trustee in the course of performing his/her duty to return to the title truster cannot constitute a fraudulent act.

2015 Ghana 41348 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Hyo

o October 20, 2015

oly 28, 2015

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendants and Non-Party A (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”) cancel the gift agreement entered into on March 25, 2014 with respect to 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “the instant gift agreement”) and the Defendants implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as “the instant ownership transfer registration”) entered into on April 9, 2014 with respect to Non-Party A’s share of 1/2 shares of the said real estate and the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as “the instant ownership transfer”) entered into on April 9, 2014 with respect to Non-Party A.

1. Basic facts

A. Claims against the Plaintiff’s newA

1) On June 28, 2013, New AA, which is familiar with the Defendants, did not transfer 00-0, and did not report the transfer income tax after transferring ○○○, ○○, ○○-dong, ○○, in accordance with the procedures for voluntary auction of real estate.

2) Accordingly, on August 12, 2014, 201, the head of △△△ District Tax Office, under the Plaintiff’s control of the Plaintiff, notified new A of KRW 00,000,000,000, which is the capital gains tax due date, and the said new A does not pay the total of three cases (hereinafter “instant tax claim”).

B. The disposition of the instant real estate share by the New AA

On March 25, 2014, New AA entered into a donation agreement with the Defendants, who are Magman, on 1/2 of the instant real estate, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on April 9, 2014 with the registration of △ District Court’s △00, which was received on April 9, 2014.

2. Determination

The requirements for revocation of a fraudulent act are ① the creditor’s preserved claim, ② the existence of a fraudulent act, ③ the debtor’s intent to injure himself, ④ the beneficiary, and subsequent purchaser’s bad faith. Among them, a fraudulent act subject to revocation of a creditor’s right of revocation refers to a juristic act between the debtor and the beneficiary, which causes a decrease in the debtor’s total assets, thereby causing a shortage in the joint security of claims. The registration made by the title trustee by the means of the performance of a duty of return to the title truster cannot constitute a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da1965, Sept. 20, 196).

The present case is examined. In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings in each testimony of the new witnessB and Ansan, the following facts can be acknowledged: (i) new AA disposes of the above land and this real estate around March 29, 1983; (ii) the real estate is located adjacent to the defendants; (iii) the property tax, etc. on the above real estate was imposed only on new AD, the defendants' put to the defendants, although the real estate in this case was registered as co-ownership; and (iv) the newCC that directly cultivated the instant real estate in this case concluded a lease agreement with Da, and paid it only to DoD.

According to the above facts of recognition, the real estate of this case and 00-0 square meters for △△△△△△△△, △△△△△△△, △△△△△, together with its subsidiaries. The real estate of this case was purchased as owned by Dood, and the above 00-0 land was purchased as owned by Dood, but it was sufficient to accept the Defendants’ assertion that each 1/2 of the above 00-0 land was held in title trust by completing registration of each 1/2 share in

Ultimately, the gift contract of this case and the transfer registration of ownership are made as part of the restoration procedure following the termination of title trust with respect to the 1/2 share of the real estate of this case to the new AD. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the above donation contract under the premise that the above donation contract can be a fraudulent act is without merit without any need to further examine other points.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.