Revocation of Fraudulent Act

transaction of real property and shares, the sole property of which is in excess of liabilities, constitutes an act detrimental to the creditors.

Seoul Central District Court 2016Kadan512723 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

○ Kim

August 10, 2017

August 24, 2017

1. As to real estate listed in the annex 1 list:

가. 피고와 김AA(XXXXXX-XXXXXXX) 사이에 2015. 6. 3. 체결된 매매예약 및 2015. 7. 9. 체결된 매매계약을 각 취소하고,

B. The Defendant shall implement the procedure for each of the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership, which was completed as of June 18, 2015 by the Gwangju District Court No. 149197, and the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership, which was completed as of July 10, 2015 by the above court No. 169306.

2. As to the shares listed in Appendix 2 List:

A. Revocation of the sales contract concluded on December 23, 2015 between the Defendant and the said KimA, and

B. The defendant shall implement the transfer procedure of shares on the ground of restitution due to the revocation of fraudulent act to the above KimA.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff (Jurisdiction) has a national tax claim amounting to KRW 910,920,790 in total, including value-added tax, against ○○ Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. from December 31, 2011 to April 21, 2015. The ○○ Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. has a claim against KimA for share acquisition amounting to KRW 1,261,850,00 in accordance with the decision of the Seoul Central District Court on July 5, 2010 on the claim for the acquisition price of KRW 1,261,850,00 in accordance with the settlement recommendation as of July 5, 2010.

B. Pursuant to Article 41(1) and (2) of the National Tax Collection Act, the Plaintiff requested the seizure and collection of claims on December 14, 2015, as the amount equivalent to the amount of national taxes in arrears, with respect to claims based on the decision of recommending settlement that ○ General Construction Co., Ltd. held against KimA, pursuant to Article 41(1) and (2) of the National Tax Collection Act, and notified KimA of the collection of claims based on attachment.

C. Meanwhile, from June 2015 to December 2015, 2015, active property owned by KimA was ① KRW 115,00,000,000 at the market price of the XX apartment 101,408 (sale around June 2015), ② approximately KRW 244,00,000, and ③ KRW 86,640,00,000, total market price of the shares listed in the attached Table 2 list, and KRW 1,261,850,00,00, and ② KRW 110,000,000,000 for the acquisition price pursuant to the above settlement recommendation decision, and KRW 1,261,850,00 for the National Bank of Korea, and KRW 110,000,000 for the collateral debt against the National Bank of Korea, exceeds KRW 1371,850,00.

D. The KimA entered into a sales contract on June 3, 2015 and July 9, 2015 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and entered into a sales contract on July 18, 2015, respectively, with the Gwangju District Court No. 149197, Jun. 18, 2015, and the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on July 10, 2015 as the provisional registration of claim for transfer of ownership and the receipt of the aforementioned court No. 169306, Dec. 23, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute is raised, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including additional number) and the purport of the whole pleading

In full view of the purport of the entire argument in the above facts, the act that KimA pre-sale or sales of the real estate and shares listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2, which are the only property of the defendant in excess of its obligation, constitutes an act detrimental to the creditors, and the KimA and the defendant also deemed to have been well aware of such circumstances. As such, upon the plaintiff's exercise of the right of revocation of fraudulent act by subrogation, the defendant and the defendant respectively cancelled the sales reservation and sales contract entered into between the defendant and the KimA with respect to the real estate and shares listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2, and the defendant has a duty to restore the original state to the original state

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

In regard to this, the defendant lent KRW 200 million to KimA on January 2014, and entered into a pre-sale and sales contract for real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 with the collateral for the above loan or payment in substitutes, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the defendant. Since the defendant entered into a sales contract for the shares listed in the separate sheet No. 2 with the repayment of interest on the above loan, each of the above acts is not a fraudulent act. Thus, the defendant's above assertion on the premise that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant lent KRW 200 million to KimA, without any need to further examine it.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.