The agreement on division of inherited property can be subject to the exercise of the right to revoke the fraudulent act, and the circumstance that the specific share of inherited property differs from that of the contributory portion should be asserted by the obligor

The agreement on division of inherited property may be subject to the exercise of the right to revoke a fraudulent act, and the circumstance that there are differences in specific shares of inheritance, such as the existence of a contributory portion, special benefit, etc., should be asserted by the obligor, but there is no evidence to prove that there was an agreement among the Defendant on recognition of Defendant 1’s contributory portion.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration of Fraudulent Act

Jeonju District Court 2016Kadan 31376 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

SAA and 2

3 The agreement of this case shall be held by the joint ownership of one-half shares of each

by way of the reduction of the joint security of the general creditors of S00. The agreement on division of this case is a claim.

It constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors of S00, including the Plaintiff (as alleged in Defendant 1, a room for selling the instant 60 and 7 real estate and receiving 60 million won out of the proceeds of the sale)

by law, even if S00 is to receive a share of inheritance, this also applies to S00 only.

replacement of the inheritance shares of each of the instant real property as movable property in a monetary form that is easily consumed;

As above, unless there are special circumstances, it constitutes fraudulent act in relation to general creditors;

It is known that S00, which is the debtor, will reduce the common property of the general creditor.

The beneficiary's bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary.

Therefore, the plaintiff seeks from the division agreement of this case between S00 and the defendants

The portion relating to each of the 1/4 of the real property of this case 1 to 5 inheritance shares of S00 is a fraudulent act.

and must be revoked.

C. Defendant 1’s assertion

1) First, Defendant 1: (a) has received and operated a restaurant (family business) operated by himself by J00; and (b) has operated the restaurant.

The title of this case 1 to 3 real estate was succeeded to, and the title of this case 4

Go 1 paid living expenses and supported for about 16 years from 1998 to J00.

The relationship asserts that the contributory portion was inherited by being recognized as the contributory portion.

W. Each entry of Eul, Eul 5 to 7 evidence (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleading

According to Section B, Defendant 1 has registered his/her business in the name of his/her spouse K0 and on November 1, 2006.

Tter 1 and 2 Real Estate in the name of "(Gu)000", and Defendant 1, as a passbook with K00, is the name of "J00", such as house taxes, etc. from January 2, 2007 to April 2013.

less than 1 million won and more than 2 million won have been paid, and west way has been paid.

75,000 won was paid for the hospital goods, and the real estate repair cost of this case 2,007

It is recognized that 10,000 won and 8,900,000 won were each disbursed in 2012. However, the contributory portion was included in the calculation thereof.

shall be determined by a consultation among co-inheritors, and no consultation is made or consultation is held.

, if not, at the request of the contributor, the Family Court shall decide to do so.

Article 108-2(1) and (2) of the Act, a fraudulent act by such method before determining the contributory portion

The Defendant in a lawsuit cannot claim his/her contributory portion against inherited property (Supreme Court Decision 2014 January 2014).

23. The facts recognized earlier and the evidence submitted by Defendant 1

The sole reason is that there was an agreement between S00 and the Defendants on the recognition of Defendant 1’s contributory portion

It is difficult to determine that there has been a trial by the family court on the contributory portion of Defendant 1.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s above assertion is rejected.

2) In addition, Defendant 1 did not know that S00 bears tax liability;

In the instant case, the remaining inheritors of the instant 6 and 7 shall not obtain the registration of transfer of ownership.

After completing inheritance registration in the name of one, it shall be sold and 60 million won out of the purchase price.

(1) The remainder of the money borrowed from Defendant Seo Young-young after deducting taxes, public charges, or the amount of money borrowed from Defendant Seo Young-young

Since payment has been made, he asserts that he is a bona fide beneficiary.

Evidence 5, Evidence 2, evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3-2, evidence 4-5, 6, 7, 8, and 5 Eul evidence 6

According to the statement - - 3, Defendant 1 as to the 6,7 real estate of this case

After completing the registration of inheritance in the name of the company, the company shall sell it and sell 35 million won out of the purchase price to S00.

payment, despite that there was money lent by Defendant 1 to S00, such person

Defendant 1’s presumption of bad faith is reversed on the sole basis of the facts determined and the evidence submitted by Defendant 1.

It is difficult to recognize that the good faith has been proven, and there is no other sufficient evidence to acknowledge it;

1 This part of the claim is rejected.

3. The method of revoking the fraudulent act and restoring it to original state.

registration to indicate ownership in his future has been made or the ownership has been acquired by law.

in addition to seeking cancellation of registration in a way to restore the true title of registration by one person.

It is also allowed to seek a direct implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure against the current registered titleholders.

Such a legal principle must be registered in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act.

applicable to the return from the beneficiary to the debtor in the future.

Therefore, the creditor is entitled to recover due to the revocation of the fraudulent act in the name of the beneficiary.

the debtor's direct ownership transfer registration against the beneficiary instead of seeking cancellation of the registration;

The vehicle may be sought to implement the vehicle (Supreme Court Decision 9Da53704 delivered on February 25, 2000).

Accordingly, the restitution following the revocation of fraudulent act to S00 as sought by the plaintiff

J 1 The cause for the recovery of authentic title with respect to each one-fourth of the real property of this case 1 through 4.

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration, and the five copies of this case

1/8 shares in each of the movables (as to the obligation to perform the registration of ownership transfer with the defendant 2 and the defendant 3 shares);

(1/4 shares) the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the restoration of title

each performance has the obligation to perform.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and all of them are accepted, and the disposition of this case is delivered.

The decision shall be rendered as above.

August 8, 2018

October 10, 2018

1. The agreement on the division of inherited property concluded on September 4, 2013 with respect to each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 between the Defendants and S00 shall be revoked; 2. S0:

A. Defendant 1 implements the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of authentic names with respect to one-fourths of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1, 2, 3, and 4;

B. Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 shall implement each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name with respect to each one-eight share of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 5.

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

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office

1.Recognition

A. J00, as S0’s reference, owns each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet”) on September 4, 2013. The Defendants and S00 died on September 4, 2013. The respective statutory inheritance shares 1/4 with children who are the deceased J0’s successors.

B. Around September 4, 2013, the Defendants and S00 independently owned the instant real estate by Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 agreed on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant division agreement”), and accordingly, on May 2, 2014, on the instant real estate under Defendant 1 through 4, 6, and 7, the registration of transfer of ownership under Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s name for each of the instant five real estate under Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, respectively, completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant 1, as to the instant real estate under the name of Defendant 1, and one-half shares for each of the instant five real estate. Thereafter, on May 30, 2014, Defendant 1 completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage amount of KRW 96 million with respect to the instant real estate in the name of Defendant 2 and Defendant 3.

C. However, at the time of the instant partition consultation, S00 did not have any particular property, other than the inheritance share of each of the instant real estate, and was liable to the Plaintiff for tax liability of KRW 293,390,620 in aggregate as value-added tax and global income tax.

D. Meanwhile, as of September 4, 2013, the market price of the instant 1 through 4 real estate is KRW 76,622,820 in total, and the market price of the instant 5 real estate is KRW 23,736,370 in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 evidence, Eul 1 and 3 evidence (including each number), the result of the market price appraisal before the appraiser of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the intent to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself/herself is constituted;

A. Relevant legal principles

The agreement on division of inherited property is to confirm the reversion of inherited property by having all or part of the inherited property provisionally owned by co-inheritors upon commencement of inheritance as sole ownership by each inheritor, or as a new co-inheritors relationship, and therefore, it aims at property rights by its nature. Therefore, it can be subject to the exercise of the right to revoke fraudulent act. Meanwhile, it is deemed that the debtor agreed on the division of inherited property on September 4, 2013.

Inasmuch as an act of selling one’s own property and changing or transferring it to another person without compensation becomes a fraudulent act against a creditor, barring any special circumstance, it constitutes a fraudulent act against a creditor, in principle, even if a debtor in excess of his/her obligation waives his/her right to the inherited property through a split-off agreement on inherited property and thus joint security against general creditors has decreased (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007): Provided, That the inherited property of a co-inheritors is determined by his/her will unless he/she infringes on his/her legal reserve of inheritance, and if there is no such will, it shall be deemed that the donated property or testamentary gift from the inheritee falls short of his/her inherited property within the limit of 00 shares (Article 1008 of the Civil Act). As such, even if a co-inheritors who specially contributed to the maintenance or increase of the inheritee’s property or who specially supported the inheritee’s inherited property does not fall short of the standard of statutory share or statutory share of inheritance.

In light of the above legal principles, S0 did not have any active property, and the Plaintiff waives his right to the inheritance share of each of the real estate of this case, the only real estate owned by the Plaintiff under a tax liability, and Defendant 1 owned the real estate of this case independently by Defendant 5, and Defendant 2 and Defendant 2.