It constitutes an excessive property division agreement beyond substantial extent and must be revoked as a fraudulent act.

Considering the circumstances in which 95% or more of the net property has been transferred as a result of the property division agreement with the acquisition process, time, and divorce of each real property, the property division agreement is excessive beyond a considerable degree and constitutes an act detrimental to the plaintiff who is a general creditor, and there was an intention to commit suicide. Therefore, the property division agreement should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

2010 Ghana 17699 Revocation, etc. of fraudulent act

Korea

Maximum XX

December 23, 2011

January 27, 2012

1. Of the property division agreement of December 19, 2006 between the Defendant and the YellowAA (*********************) on each real property in the separate sheet, the part on three real property in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the registration procedure of the Ulsan District Court with respect to the three real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on December 20, 2006 under the receipt of No. 132519.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. Of the litigation costs, 80% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The agreement on the division of property on December 19, 2006 between the Defendant and YellowA (********************) on each real property listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked, and the Defendant shall implement the registration of the Ulsan District Court with respect to each real property listed in the separate sheet and the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on December 20, 206 by receipt No. 132519.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 9, 2005, the auction procedure commenced on February 24, 2006, FranK acquired the land XX Dong 000-0.

B. Yellow A did not report capital gains tax pursuant to the above auction procedure, and the head of Seongbuk-do Tax Office under the Plaintiff’s control notified the Plaintiff to pay capital gains tax of KRW 137,885,297 on July 1, 2009. However, sulfurA did not pay the said tax, and on August 2, 2010, the additional charges for the said capital gains tax amounting to KRW 23,91,990.

C. On August 24, 2006, Yellow City completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of a third party, which was caused by sale and purchase around that time, with respect to the O00-0 land in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-do, Pulju-do, 00-0 land in the same Ri, and the land in the same Ri 00-0-0 land.

D. On December 20, 2006, Yellow A was divorced from the Defendant, and on December 20, 2006, the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the Defendant on the grounds of the registration of the Ulsan District Court on each real estate indicated in the separate sheet, which was owned by it, and the property division on December 19, 2006, under the name of the Defendant. As a result, on the real estate owned by Yellow A, it was completed on December 19, 2006, the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the Defendant. On December 21, 2006, it was completed on the real estate owned by Yellow AA, Dong-si, Busan-si, Busan-do, 00-0, OO-ri-ri, Busan-dong, 631-18, and 631-20 land under the name of the third party around December 21, 206.

E. At the time of December 20, 206, the market price of the land indicated in the attached list 1 was KRW 734,080,00; KRW 85,800,00 for the market price of the land indicated in the attached list 2; KRW 298,892,00 for the market price of the land listed in the same list; KRW 17,550,00 for the land listed in the same list; KRW 8,640,00 for the five land listed in the same list; KRW 8,142,00 for the market price of the land listed in the same list 60,00 for the 60,000,000 for the 206,000,000,000 won for each of the land listed in the attached list; KRW 318,20,000,000 for the 20,700-4,007,000 for the land listed in the same list.

F. During the process of the instant case, after cancelling the registration of creation of the right to collateral security, which was completed on the 3 real estate listed in the separate sheet between the plaintiff and the defendant, the agreement was reached by the defendant to cancel the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security on the said real estate, and the defendant revoked the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security on the said real estate, and the court decided to recommend

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 4-1, 3, 5, and 6-2, the market price appraisal result of appraiser KimB, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) A creditor has the right to revoke;

1) In principle, it is required that a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that is deemed a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that the legal relationship, which is the basis of the establishment of the claim, has already occurred at the time of the fraudulent act, and that the claim should be established in the near future in the near future, and where a claim has been established as a result of realizing it in the near future, the claim may also be the preserved claim. Meanwhile, even if a debtor transfers a certain property to his/her spouse in divorce to a division of property, thereby reducing joint security against general creditors, barring any special circumstance to deem that the above division of property is excessive beyond the considerable degree under the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, it shall not be subject to revocation by a fraudulent act, unless it is subject to a legitimate division of property as long as it exceeds the above considerable degree.

2) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the legal relationship, which is the requirement for taxation of capital gains tax on the above sale, has already been formed before the property division agreement of this case was made by selling the land XX Dong 000-0 on February 24, 2006, and thereafter, the head of Sungbuk District Tax Office under the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the payment of the capital gains tax of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s national tax claim against the Defendant is the preserved claim for the obligee’s right of revocation.

3) On the other hand, Yellow A and the defendant were married on April 22, 1964, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 250, KRW 701, KRW 4705, KRW 700, KRW 4700, KRW 4700, KRW 4700, KRW 4700, KRW 5700, KRW 4700, KRW 4700, KRW 5770, KRW 570, KRW 470, KRW 570, KRW 570, KRW 470, KRW 570, KRW 470, KRW 570, KRW 470, KRW 570, KRW 470, KRW 506, KRW 570, KRW 4700, KRW 579, KRW 4700, KRW 5706, KRW 4700, KRW 5700, KRW 4700, KRW 5706, KRW 47000.

4) Ultimately, the conclusion of the instant property division agreement with the content that each real estate listed in the separate sheet is to be transferred to the Defendant is to reduce the property liable to the general creditor, and thus constitutes an act that causes damage to the Plaintiff, which is a general creditor, as it reduces the property liability to the general creditor. Furthermore, it is presumed that the Defendant’s intent to commit suicide is presumed, and the instant property division agreement should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

5) In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that, although the Defendant decided to pay the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the 2 and 3 real estate listed in the attached list, each of the above land was not sold and the debt was not repaid, or the above secured debt should be included in the real property, if the appraisal exceeds 1.6 billion won, or if it did not make a deduction, the secured debt of the right to collateral security should be deducted, or should be included in the real property. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant acquired the secured debt of the above secured right, and there is no ground to acknowledge that the land owned by others was offered as the real property because the land owned by others was not included in the secured debt of the above secured right, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. Determination on the Defendant’s bona fide assertion

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the transfer income tax of this case was made after the division of property of this case, and that the defendant was in a separate state with Yellow A from 2002, and thus, the defendant could not be known. ② Yellow A had the property of 4.9 billion won since the beginning of 2006, while the transfer income tax of this case did not amount to 200 million won, the transfer income tax of this case did not amount to 200 million won, and that the division of property of this case was made lawfully in the process of confusion with the defendant, so the defendant is a bona fide acquisitor.

The defendant's good faith argument is without merit, because there is no evidence to acknowledge it with respect to the assertion, and ② the extension of the defendant's assertion that was rejected prior to the argument is merely a part of the extension of the argument.

C. Scope of revocation of creditor

Since the right to revoke a fraudulent act aims to preserve the joint collateral of a claim, the scope of revocation is limited to the extent necessary and sufficient to preserve the joint collateral. Therefore, in a case where a debtor is in excess of his/her obligation only by means of a fraudulent act, the creditor is sufficient to revoke only the portion which is insufficient to secure the joint collateral of the claim as long as the fraudulent act is separate, and the entire act cannot be revoked.

On the other hand, the property division agreement of this case can be divided into each real estate listed in the separate sheet. On the other hand, the land having the most adjacent value to the income tax amount is 3 real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the defendant also raises any special objection as to the restitution of the above real estate. Therefore, the property division agreement of this case is revoked only on August 30, 201 (Although the registration of the establishment of a neighboring real estate completed on the above real estate was revoked on August 30, 201, it was found in the process of consultation between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the defendant does not dispute that the property division agreement of this case was revoked even on the part where the right to collateral security was revoked, so the value compensation is not clear).

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the part concerning the 3 real estate listed in the separate sheet among the Defendant and YellowA on December 19, 2006 between the property division agreement on each real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration of the Ulsan District Court and the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on December 20, 2006 by the receipt No. 132519 on 3 real estate listed in the separate sheet.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition.