Revocation of Fraudulent Act

The gift of this case should be viewed as a single gift act in a lump sum by Defendant Kim 00, a single counterpart under a single contract of donation.

Revocation of Fraudulent Act

00 Civil Country

Kim 00 and one other

March 10, 2016

May 26, 2016

1. A. As of May 15, 2014 regarding real estate listed in the annexed Table 1 list between Defendant Kim 00 and the maximum 00

The contract of gift shall be revoked.

B. Defendant Kim 00 shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on May 15, 2014 by the receipt No. 6923, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 list to the largest 00.

2. A. As of May 15, 2014, concerning real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 between Defendant Kim 00 and the maximum 00

A contract of gift shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 130,944,00.

B. Defendant Kim 00 shall pay to the Plaintiff 130,944,000 won with an annual interest of 5% per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case is finalized to the day of complete payment.

3. (a) The sales contract of May 22, 2014 with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 100 and the largest 00 between the Defendant is revoked to the extent of KRW 115,00,000.

B. Defendant 00 shall pay to the Plaintiff 115,00,000 won with an annual interest of 5% per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case is finalized to the day of complete payment.

4. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

After cancelling the contract of gift as of May 15, 2014 with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 115, 200 and 100, Defendant Kim 00 shall pay to the Plaintiff 130,94,000 won and the amount calculated by applying the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final to the day of complete payment. Defendant Lee 100 and 200 shall cancel the contract of purchase and sale of real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 between Defendant Lee 00 and the maximum 00, and Defendant Lee 00 shall pay to the Plaintiff 115,00,000 won and the amount calculated by applying the rate of 5% per annum from the day after the date when the judgment of this case is final to the day when

1. Basic facts

A. Formation of a taxation claim against the maximum 00

1) On November 29, 2004, the maximum 00 square meters sold 00 square meters in Yong-Gun, Jeonnam-gun, 00 square meters, and 156,539 square meters in lots, and reported the transfer value to KRW 1,013,890,000,000, not in actual value.

2) As a result of the tax investigation on maximum 00 from April 1, 2014 to April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff revealed the foregoing facts, and on May 12, 2014, calculated the expected amount of capital gains tax at KRW 188,078,110, and notified the maximum 00, and the Plaintiff received the said notification on May 13, 2014.

3) On June 13, 2014, the Plaintiff imposed a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 188,078,110 on the maximum 00 on July 15, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing capital gains tax”), but the maximum 00 did not pay the said capital gains tax by the date of receipt of the instant written complaint.

(b) Disposition of most recent 00 real estate;

1) On May 15, 2014, the maximum 00 donated (hereinafter referred to as “real estate 1”) the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “attached 2”) and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “attached 2”) to the defendant Kim 00, his spouse, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of defendant Kim 00 as of each real estate as of May 15, 2014.

2) On May 22, 2014, the maximum00 entered into a sales contract with Defendant Lee 00 and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as “attached 3 real estate”) with the purchase price of KRW 115,00,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “sale of this case”) and on the same day, the Gwangju District Court’s Circuit registry office for each real estate on the same day.

In May 2, 2014, the registration of the transfer of ownership by Defendant Lee 00 was completed as the receipt No. 7278.

C. The defendants' disposal of real estate

1) After Defendant Kim 00 donated the attached Tables 1 and 2, he created a joint collateral (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) with respect to the obligor’s maximum amount of 00, 00 agricultural cooperatives and maximum amount of 260,000,000 won with respect to the attached immovables 3, 4, and 2 among the attached immovables 1, as seen above.

2) On April 14, 2015, Defendant Kim 00 sold the attached real estate in KRW 199,687,000 to 00, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on April 14, 2015 as the receipt No. 6234 on the same day, Defendant Kim 00 completed the registration of transfer of ownership on April 14, 2015. The registration of cancellation was completed on the same day.

3) After purchasing attached property on May 23, 2014, Defendant 00 created a joint collateral security at KRW 00,000, the debtor, 00 agricultural cooperatives and maximum debt amount of KRW 78,000,00.

(d) Obligations of maximum 00 loans;

On May 15, 2014, the maximum 00 borrowed KRW 193,00,000 from an agricultural cooperative at a rate of 5.5% (hereinafter “instant loan”) and Kim 00 granted the instant mortgage as a security for the above maximum 00 borrowed loan obligations.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 8, Gap evidence 9-1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 2, 3 and 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. As to the instant donation

1) Formation of preserved claims

A) 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 can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that form the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future. In cases where a claim has been created due to the de facto realization in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da68084, Jan. 13, 201).

According to the above facts, the legal relations, which are the basis of the disposition imposing the transfer income tax of this case, have already occurred on November 29, 2004, and on May 12, 2014, which was before the donation of this case, there was a high probability that the claim should be established based on the above legal relations in the near future, such as notifying the maximum 00 of the estimated amount of the transfer income tax according to the results of the tax investigation on May 12, 2014. In fact, the payment deadline of June 13, 2014, which was about one month after the date of the donation of this case, was imposed on July 15, 2014, and the plaintiff's tax claim against the maximum 00 (hereinafter "the tax claim of this case"). Thus, even if the gift of this case had already occurred prior to the occurrence of the tax claim of this case, the plaintiff's tax claim of this case can be the preserved claim of fraudulent act.

B) Defendant Kim 00 asserts that, at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract as of November 29, 2004 between the maximum0 and Kim 00, the seller, at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract as of November 29, 2004, the seller, the seller, was voluntarily reported the false transfer value and the maximum 00 did not know it, and thus, the disposition of imposition of the transfer income tax in this case cannot be deemed to have evaded the national tax due to unlawful act by the maximum 00.

However, as a matter of principle, capital gains tax adopts the method of filing a return on tax obligation by investigating and verifying the fulfillment of the requirements for establishing a tax obligation by a taxpayer himself/herself and filing a tax base and tax amount by applying the relevant tax-related Acts. As long as 00 persons, who are liable for tax payment, have reported a false transfer value to another person without filing a report, if the other person reported a false transfer value, it cannot be exempted from liability for evading national taxes due to unlawful act. Thus, Defendant Kim

2) Whether the fraudulent act was established

A) According to the evidence revealed earlier, at the time of May 15, 2014, the gift of this case was formed with the maximum of 00 won as of 59,939,20 won, and the attached Form 1 and the equivalent value of 130,94,00 won, plus attached real estate value of 55,513,790 won, as of 132,564,320 won (18,078,110 won), and the total amount of 246,390 won was added to the attached Form 2 and the attached Form 3 real estate value of 55,513,790, and the small property was not in excess of the debt due to the tax liability of the Plaintiff, the preserved claim of this case, but the small property was not in excess of the debt amount of 18,078,110 won - 5,513,790 won (the other party to this case’s gift of this case’s total).

B) Defendant Kim 00 claimed that, prior to the instant donation, the instant mortgage was established with respect to the instant real estate Nos. 3 and 4, and the instant real estate Nos. 2 and 2, but even if the value of the instant real estate was less than the amount of the secured debt of the instant real estate, even if the instant real estate was donated to Defendant Kim 00, it did not constitute a fraudulent act because the lack of joint security arises.

According to the records in Gap's evidence Nos. 3 and 4, Eul evidence No. 7-1 and Eul evidence No. 2-2, the receipt number of the registration number of the right to collateral security of this case is No. 6924 of May 15, 2014, and the receipt number of the registration number of the right to collateral security of this case is No. 6923 of receipt on May 15, 2014. The receipt number of the registration number of the right to collateral security of this case is more than the former registration number of the latter under No. 6923 of receipt on May 15, 2014, and the loan transaction agreement of this case is recognized that the person who created the right to collateral security of this case is recorded as defendant Kim 00. Thus, the right to collateral security of this case is established after the donation of this case, and

3) The maximum 00 physician and defendant Kim 00's bad faith

A) In full view of the following circumstances revealed through the above evidence, i.e., ① the maximum00 was donated to Defendant Kim 00 on May 13, 2014 immediately after receipt of the notice that the instant capital gains tax was imposed on May 13, 2014; ② Defendant Kim 00 was donated the attached Forms 1 and 2 without any consideration as the maximum 00 spouse’s spouse, and it is presumed that Defendant Kim 00 was the beneficiary’s bad faith.

B) Defendant Kim 00 alleged that the maximum of 00 prior to receiving the gift of the attached Forms 1 and 2 was unaware of having been in excess of his/her obligation, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the entries of the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 alone are insufficient to reverse the presumption, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. Regarding the instant sales

1) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s instant taxation claim may be a preserved claim against a fraudulent act.

2) Whether the fraudulent act was established

According to the above evidence, it is acknowledged that the maximum 00 property at the time of the sale of this case had real estate attached to 5,513,790 for the value of 55,513,790 as active property, and that there was a tax liability of KRW 188,078,110 against the Plaintiff, which is a preserved claim of this case, with a small property. Therefore, it is recognized that the maximum 00 was in a state of excess of the obligation at the time of the sale of this case, and that the joint security already in a state of shortage due to the sale of this case

Therefore, the sale of this case is subject to disposition in excess of debt, and creditors including the plaintiff

It is a fraudulent act that causes the shortage of joint security.

3) The maximum 00 master and the defendant Lee 00's bad faith

As seen earlier, it is assumed that the maximum 00 intention is recognized, and the bad faith of the defendant Lee 00, a beneficiary, is presumed.

Defendant 00 alleged that the maximum amount of 00 prior to the instant sales was in excess of the obligation. However, the following circumstances, which were known from the overall purport of the entries and arguments set forth in No. 9, No. 9, and No. 9, i.e., the maximum of 00 and Defendant 00, which were known from 2004 and were known from 2004, are as follows, and the maximum of 00, which were trusted and trusted as pro-friendly, sold real estate to Defendant 00 immediately after receiving a notice of the amount of capital gains tax after undergoing a tax investigation by the authorities, and Defendant 00

Of 115,00,000 won, 50,000,000 won shall be offset by the loan claims against the maximum 00 and attached Form 3.

1.2,00,000 won loaned as security and paid in full, the sale and purchase is again asserted.

KRW 50,000,000 out of the price shall be paid more than one year after the date of sale, and one year shall also be paid.

B. There is a different assertion that the remaining half of the purchase price is to be paid, as the latter.

in attached Form 3 to Defendant 00, who is not capable of preparing the purchase price, if the payment is to be made.

50,000,000 won which will be paid in the future while transferring the registration of ownership transfer of Busan before

The fact that provisional registration or any other measure of securing claims was not taken is different from the sale and purchase contract.

In light of this example, each of the statements of Eul-B or Eul-10 alone is subject to each of the following facts:

It is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant Lee 00 was bona fide at that time, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(c)

(c) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

1) Attached 1 Real Estate

The instant donation between the largest 00 and the defendant Kim 00 is revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant Kim 00 is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration with respect to the attached real estate to the largest 00 persons due to restitution.

2) Regarding Attached 2 and Attached 3 real estate

A) In a case where a legal act on a certain real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, in principle, the revocation of the fraudulent act and the cancellation of the registration for the transfer of ownership, etc. However, in a case where it is impossible or considerably difficult to return originals, compensation should be ordered equivalent to the value of the object of the fraudulent act as a performance of the duty to restore the ownership. Such compensation should be ordered to compensate for the value within the scope of the establishment of the fraudulent act because it becomes common creditors' joint collateral. Thus, in a case where a bona fide third party orders compensation for the value of the object of the fraudulent act on the grounds that the property was acquired as mortgage after the fraudulent act, it should be ordered to order the full amount of

C. (See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da40286 delivered on December 12, 2003, etc.)

In addition, if the court orders compensation for the equivalent amount as the restitution due to the cancellation of the fraudulent act, the cancelled claim

The holder may directly demand the payment of compensation for the equivalent value to him, and the amount of such payment has been made.

Unless there is any provision concerning the method or procedure for distributing prize money, etc. under the current law, other

Since the obligees cannot demand a distribution against the above-value compensation, the obligee cannot eventually demand a distribution.

The creditor may not seek compensation for value in excess of the amount of the new claim. Meanwhile, even if the creditor has obtained a favorable judgment in favor of any beneficiary (including the person who acquired it) by claiming the revocation of fraudulent act and restitution of the original claim, so long as the judgment has not been completed accordingly, the creditor shall separately revoke the fraudulent act against the other beneficiary on the basis of his/her secured claim and the restoration of the property or value.

and the creditor's claim for revocation of fraudulent act and restitution to the original state against many beneficiaries.

In case where several lawsuits are pending by filing a lawsuit, the claims of the creditors in each lawsuit.

order the revocation of the fraudulent act and the restoration to the original state, and the value of the beneficiary shall be

In cases where compensation is to be made, the beneficiary shall return without taking into account the result of other litigation.

to the extent of the value required, order the creditor to return the full amount of the preserved claim; and

This legal principle has a result of disposing of several real estate at the same time to several beneficiaries.

As such, each such act of disposal becomes a fraudulent act by being in excess, and the creditor

each beneficiary is entitled to revoke the fraudulent act and recover from the original state by making the beneficiary a co-defendant.

the sum of the value of the responsible property subject to such duty shall be received by the creditor;

The same shall apply to cases where the total amount of credit exceeds the total amount of credit (Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1442 Decided November 13, 2008).

see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

B) The value of [Attachment 2 and 3] real estate and each real estate after the disposal act against the Defendants

The details of the acquisition by a third party of ownership or mortgage shall be as follows:

Grounds for calculating the value of real estate (cost)

It is impossible to return originals or

Grounds significantly difficult to do so

Attached Form 2 199,687,001) A-3-1

00. Transfer of ownership through 000

April 14, 2015

(No. 6234)

[Attachment 3 115,000,002]

Gap evidence 9-1,

E. B. 9 Certificate

00 Establishment of a right to collateral security by agricultural cooperatives

May 23, 2014

Receipt of registry office Article 7328

C) According to the above legal principles and the facts of recognition, the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer or the registration of establishment of ownership transfer on the gift of this case or the attached Forms 2 and 3 after the sale of this case.

(1) If it is not possible or substantially difficult to return the property to the maximum of 00

The value of the above real estate shall be as seen earlier, and the same amount shall also be at the time of the conclusion of the pleadings in this case.

shall be presumed to have been accepted.

D) Meanwhile, the scope of revocation of a fraudulent act is limited to the amount of the creditor’s claim. Thus, in cases where restitution is made by means of equivalent compensation, the amount of compensation is limited to the amount of the creditor’s claim. Accordingly, the revocation of a fraudulent act and compensation for equivalent value are less than the amount of the creditor’s preserved claim and the amount of joint collateral value of the real estate which

to the extent and to the extent.

According to the evidence evidence No. 12, as of February 12, 2016, the Plaintiff’s preserved claim amount as of February 12, 2016, is recognized as of February 12, 2016 (the Plaintiff’s electronic evidence No. 12-1), and constitutes the purchase price pursuant to the sales contract as of April 14, 2015 with respect to the attached real estate between Defendant Kim 00 and 000. The value of the attached real estate calculated based on the officially announced land price as of January 1, 2015 does not exceed that of the attached real estate No. 2, and other evidence was not submitted to know the real transaction value of the attached real estate No. 2 as of January 1, 2015.

2) Pursuant to the sales contract concluded on May 22, 2014 with respect to the attached real estate between the largest0 and the Defendant 00, it constitutes the sales price pursuant to the sales contract as of May 22, 2014. Since the value of the attached real estate calculated based on the officially announced land price as of January 1, 2015 does not exceed that of the attached real estate value, and other evidence was not submitted to ascertaining the real transaction value of the attached

No. 2014-12-622-408037, the first due date for payment, December 31, 2014, the notified tax amount of KRW 1,278,640;

Tax claims 1,516,410 of current amount in arrears are also included in the amount of preserved claims, but the above taxation claims

Since the taxation claim of this case and the cause of the taxation claim of this case appear to be different, they shall be preserved.

according to the statement of land cadastre submitted by the plaintiff as a result of the assessment of the action.

As of January 1, 2015, the officially announced land price as of January 1, 2015 is 60,640,600. According to the above, the scope of revocation of a fraudulent act against Defendant Kim 00 shall be as of January 1, 201.

The amount of KRW 199,687,00,00 of the Plaintiff’s preserved claim amounting to KRW 234,345,190,00 for real estate in attached Form 1.

Plaintiff out of KRW 173,704,590, less than KRW 60,640,600 for the value of the property restored to its original state;

As sought, KRW 130,94,00, KRW 1300, KRW 200, KRW 00, KRW 200 and Defendant Kim 00

of KRW 130,944,00, which was concluded on May 15, 2014; and

Kim 00 As to the plaintiff 130,944,00 won and the revocation of the fraudulent act and restitution to the original state.

The judgment of this case where the defendant Kim 00's obligation to compensate for the value has become final and conclusive and will result in delay of performance.

Damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day after the date of confirmation to the day of full payment.

have an obligation to pay.

Since the value of the attached real estate 00 also falls short of the amount of the Plaintiff’s preserved claim, Defendant 115,00,000 won which was entered into on May 22, 2014 with respect to the attached real estate between 00 and Defendant 00 shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 115,00,000, and Defendant 00 shall be liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the date following the date of the conclusion of the judgment of this case to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and B

M. The claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.