It is deemed that active property was more than small property, and it does not constitute a fraudulent act.

Since active property at the time of the instant donation appears to have been more than a negative property and there is no evidence to prove that the donation had been in excess of obligation at the time of donation, the donation cannot be deemed to constitute a fraudulent act.

2012 Gohap 100836 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

JAA

October 23, 2012

November 6, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff answers the costs of lawsuit.

The contract for the donation between the defendant and the grandchildB on December 15, 2008 shall be revoked within the limit of 000 won, and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won light with 5% interest per annum from the day after the date this decision is finally binding to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Formation of a taxation claim

1) On August 29, 2008, the grandchildren transferred 000 won (hereinafter “instant stock transfer”) to DD Co., Ltd., Ltd., but did not report it to the tax authority, and the director of the tax office of the tax office of the Song branch under the Plaintiff issued tax investigation by May 13, 201 with respect to the said stock transfer, and notified the son to pay the transfer income tax by August 31, 201, and the son did not pay it.

"2) Accordingly, the EE is delinquent in the national tax of KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as "instant tax claims") as of February 2, 2012 as of February 2, 2012; b. Transfer of money by the sonB.

1) The Defendant is the spouse of the grandchildrenB, and the latter is the Defendant’s mother.

2) The grandchildrenB received and kept 00 won out of the share transfer price of this case to the national bank account in the name of the FF on December 12, 2008.

3) On December 15, 2008, RoE terminated the deposit contract with respect to the account in the name of the National Bank in the name of the FF, accrued a total of KRW 000,000,000,000 from the national bank account in the name of the Defendant on December 15, 2008, and KRW 00,000 from the foreign bank account in the name of the Defendant, and KRW 00 to the corporate bank account in the name of the Defendant, and KRW 00 to the corporate bank account in the name of the Defendant on December 15, 200.

A total of 000 won was remitted.

4) As above, the director of the tax office of the party branch under the Plaintiff’s jurisdiction determined that the Plaintiff’s 000 won out of the transferred 000 won out of the transferred 000 won to the Defendant’s bank account was the amount that the Plaintiff donated to the Defendant.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, and Eul 1 and 2 (including any number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s claim

Since BaB’s act of donation of KRW 000 on December 15, 2008 to the Defendant (hereinafter “the donation in this case”) constitutes a fraudulent act that causes the Plaintiff to lack common security of general creditors similar to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is obligated to cancel the above donation contract within the scope of KRW 000,000, which is a preserved claim against B, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 00 and its delay damages to its original state.

3. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

In principle, a claim that can be protected by obligee's right of revocation should have occurred before the obligor performs a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, but at the time of the juristic act, there is a high probability that the claim is based on the legal relationship in the near future, and that it is likely that the claim is created in the near future, and its claim can also be preserved claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001; 2006Da6753, Jun. 29, 2007; 2006Da6753, Dec. 15, 2008; 2008; 202Da28188, Jun. 28, 2008).

B. Legal nature of the act of remitting money by the grandchildren;

1) Parties’ assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the remittance of BaB to the Defendant on December 15, 2008 constitutes a donation contract. The Defendant asserted that the remittance may be made based on various legal causes, and that the Defendant consented or understood that the person in a personal relationship, who is aware of the fact that Does transfer the money to his own account to his own account in order to avoid tracking the taxation authority, etc., or that he allowed the Defendant to control his own account for this purpose, barring any special circumstances, it cannot be easily concluded that the remitter and the account holder agreed to give the remittance amount free of charge as above to the account holder, and that there was no agreement between the remitter and the account holder that the remittance amount was made with the intent to give it free of charge, and that the remittance was made for the purpose of the withdrawal, withdrawal, and withdrawal of the transferred money to the Defendant, the purpose of use, and the relationship between DoB and the Defendant, etc., and that the payment of money to the Defendant’s own account does not fall under one’s own own account or the Defendant’s own interest for the purpose of management of the money.

2) Determination

In full view of the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant's hand, and Gap evidence No. 7, and Eul evidence No. 1

BB transferred 00 won to the bank account in the Defendant’s name, and OOOO fee center membership, etc., were acquired on May 20, 2009, and paid part of the purchase price when purchasing OOO No. 0000, Dong-dong OO No. 0000, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and there was a private theory that paid interest on loans for 500 million won borrowed as security, and it is reasonable to view that the above OO apartment was ultimately reverted to the Defendant, and that the OE remitted money to the Defendant by the O was ultimately reverted to the Defendant. Therefore, it constitutes a gift contract where OE transferred 00 won to the Defendant on December 15, 2008.

(c) Whether the debts of the grandchildren are exceeded;

1) Relevant legal principles

In order to become a fraudulent act, the debtor's act of disposal of the property should cause a decrease in the debtor's whole property and there should have been a shortage in the common security of claims or there should have been such a situation. In other words, the debtor's passive property should exceed the positive property, and the fact that it exceeds the obligation should exist at the time of the closure of the arguments

2) Determination

A) LossB’s passive property

As seen above, the fact that there was KRW 000 of the instant tax liability as the small property by the grandchildB at the time of the instant donation (at the time of the instant donation, even though the instant tax liability was not specifically established at the time of the instant donation, it is reasonable to include the small property as well as the instant tax liability inasmuch as the said basic legal relationship has already occurred and the claim is highly probable to have been established, and as such, the obligee’s right

(B) the active property of the B;

First, in full view of the facts that the BaB's active property at the time of the fraudulent act, Gap, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, and each fact inquiry reply to the OO communication at this court, and AAB on December 15, 2008, which was before the time of the donation to the defendant, had 00 won stored in the bank account under the name of BaB, and DoE had 00 won received as the purchase price of the shares in this case on December 12, 2008, and that the OB leased 00 won to OB from 00 won to 00,000 won, and that the OB leased 00 won to OB from 00 to 23 December 209, 2009, and that the OB leased 00 won to OB communication at least 300,000 won to OB from 00 to 200,000 won.

C)Judgment

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the premise that the instant donation constitutes a fraudulent act is not reasonable without any further review, as it appears that the Plaintiff’s active property was more than the negative property at the time of the instant donation, and there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had been in a bad debt at the time of the instant donation, and as such, it cannot be deemed that the instant donation constituted a fraudulent act. Even if the B was in a bad debt at the time of the instant donation, the Plaintiff cannot revoke the instant donation as a fraudulent act, since the said excess was resolved at the time of the closure of the argument, even if the B was in a bad debt at the time of the instant donation

4. Conclusion

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