If payment is made to the defendant who is a specific creditor in excess of the obligation, it is subject to revocation of the fraudulent act.

If a delinquent taxpayer provided each of the instant real estate to the defendant, who is a specific creditor in excess of his/her liability by payment in kind, it constitutes a fraudulent act undermining the interests of other creditors, and it is presumed that the defendant's intent to commit suicide

2013 Gohap 100173 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

EO

March 21, 2014

April 4, 2014

1. A. As to each real estate listed in paragraphs 1 through 10 of the separate sheet between the Defendant and the OO, 201.

11.22. Cancellation of a pre-contract;

B. The Defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer, which was completed on November 24, 201 by the receipt No. 00000 on November 24, 201, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate list Nos. 1 through 10.

2. (a) The sales contract concluded on May 22, 2012 between the Defendant and the OO with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 10 is revoked.

B. On May 22, 2012, the Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on May 22, 2012 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 10, in the Seoul District Court’s Guro registry.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff notified the OO to pay taxes as follows, but the O did not pay the taxes up to the date. Accordingly, the amount of the tax claims held by the Plaintiff against the O as of January 14, 2013 is as follows.

B. The Defendant, who came to know through the head office O, set out and lent KRW 000 on March 5, 2008, KRW 000 on March 14, 2008, and KRW 000 on April 4, 2008, respectively, to this △△△△, which became known through the head office O.

C. However, as this account was unable to repay the above money by the due date, on May 6, 2008, this account was prepared and delivered to the Defendant with a joint and several payment notice stating that where this account was unable to repay the above money by May 15, 2008, the head of PO shall pay the Defendant the above money, and on November 26, 2010, this account was delivered to the Defendant.

I prepared a letter of commitment to the Defendant to pay 000 won interest for arrears in 1, 200 won by December 30, 2010.

D. On December 30, 2010, the OO failed to pay the above money to the Defendant, and on June 22, 2011, the OO prepared a letter of performance to provide the Defendant with real estate owned by the OO as a substitute if it is not possible to pay KRW 000 by September 30, 2011.

E. On November 22, 2011, 201, the headO failed to pay KRW 000 to the Defendant by the due date stipulated in the above performance memorandum, and the headO entered into a pre-sale agreement with the Defendant on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 10 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”). On November 24, 2011, the Defendant completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration under the Seoul Southern Southern District Court’s registration office (00) with respect to each of the instant real estate on November 24, 2011, based on the instant pre-sale agreement as the grounds for registration.

F. After May 22, 2012, the POO entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for each of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On May 22, 2012, the Defendant, who was affiliated with each of the instant real estate, completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 000 on May 22, 2012, based on the instant sales contract’s grounds for registration.

G. At the time of the instant promise to sell and purchase and the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the headO exceeded obligations with small assets more than active assets.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap's evidence 2 through 6, Eul's evidence 2, 4, 6, 7

the purpose of each entry, as a whole, of the entire pleadings, including branch numbers

2. Determination on this safety defense

The Defendant: (a) conducted a tax investigation with respect to the headO from September 201 to November 201, 201 by the Plaintiff; (b) during the process, the Plaintiff became aware that the headO did not pay taxes; and (c) further, he investigated the details of the property held by the headO; and (d) on December 2011, the public official in charge of the headO in charge of the duties in charge of the duties in charge of the duties in charge of the duties in charge of the duties in arrears by phone call to the headO and carried out the investigation into the transfer of each of the instant real property to the Defendant; (c) the Plaintiff was aware that the headO transferred each of the instant real property to the Defendant at least on December 2011; and (d) the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of the instant case on February 14, 2013 after one year from that time. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserted that the exclusion period of the instant lawsuit of the Plaintiff was unlawful and unlawful.

A lawsuit for revocation by a creditor shall be brought within one year from the date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act). In the exercise of the creditor's right of revocation, "the date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the creditor becomes aware of the fact that the debtor had committed a fraudulent act while being aware of the fact that the creditor had harmed the creditor. This is insufficient to simply recognize the fact that the debtor conducted a disposal of the property, and further, it is required to know that the debtor had an intent to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and that the debtor had an intent to deception (see Supreme Court Decision 2007 delivered on March 26,

63102. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 63102; 2. 1-1 of the evidence No. 1; and 3. 4.

Around December 2011, it is not sufficient to recognize that an OO’s act of disposing of property was a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant’s defense of safety is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle, it is highly probable that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that serve as the basis of the formation of the claim, and that the claim is established in the near future by such legal relations, and in case where a claim has been established due to the realization of the probability in the near future, such claim may also be the preserved claim

According to the facts acknowledged earlier, although the Plaintiff’s taxation claim against OO issued a payment notice after the instant promise, the date of establishment of the tax claim’s taxation obligation and the commencement date of taxation are prior to the instant promise for sale and purchase, there were legal relations which form the basis of the establishment of the tax claim prior to the instant promise for sale and purchase, and OO was in insolvent at the time of the instant promise for sale and purchase, and there was no tax payment after OOO’s payment, etc., there was a high probability for the establishment of the tax claim in the near future, as well as for the fact that there was a high probability that the tax claim should be established in the near future, and the tax claim was established by

(b) The establishment and intent of fraudulent act;

Where a debtor's property is insufficient to fully repay his/her obligation, and the debtor provided his/her property to a certain creditor as payment in kind, barring any special circumstance, it would be prejudicial to the interests of other creditors, and thus, it would be a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, and the same applies to cases where the property provided as payment in kind is not the debtor's exclusive property, or is below the debtor's value of the claim amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da18218, Jul. 12, 2007). As acknowledged earlier, the defendant had a monetary claim against O, and even if the defendant was transferred the real property from OO in lieu of repayment of the above monetary claim, if O provided each of the instant property to the defendant, who is a specific creditor of OO, as payment in kind, in excess of the above monetary claim, it constitutes a fraudulent act that causes harm to the interests of other creditors,

As to this, the defendant did not know whether the OO was in default of national taxes at the time of concluding the contract for the purchase and sale of this case and the sales contract of this case with the OO, so the defendant asserts that it is a bona fide beneficiary, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the above argument

(c) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Therefore, the contract for sale and purchase of this case and the contract for sale of this case concluded between POO and the defendant on each of the real estate of this case shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant shall be obligated to implement the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership and provisional registration of transfer of ownership completed with respect to each of the real estate of this case and cancellation of ownership transfer.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so ordered as per Disposition by admitting it.

judgment.