Revocation of Fraudulent Act

The agreement on division of the inherited property of this case constitutes a fraudulent act.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

2013 Ghana 26526 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AAA

November 8, 2013

November 29, 2013

1. As to each real estate listed in the Schedule of Attached 1:

A. The agreement between the Defendant and the newB on the division and rectification of inherited property, concluded on July 4, 2012, shall be revoked within the scope of OOB.

B. The Defendant will implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of cancellation of ownership modification, which was completed as of July 9, 2012 by the Daejeon District Court Branch of Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court on each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 list, with respect to the newB.

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

Cheong-gu Office

"At first, with respect to shares of 3/9 out of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant and the newB shall cancel the agreement between the defendant and the newB on July 4, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "instant corrective agreement") within the limit of the OOB, and the defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation of registration of cancellation of ownership modification (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of ownership modification") completed on July 9, 2012 with respect to shares of 3/9 out of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list as stated in the Daejeon District Court of Daejeon District, Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court on July 9, 2012."

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. The NewB, on September 24, 2008, did not pay the transfer income tax on the land and above-ground buildings located in OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O

B. The husband of NewB died on April 20, 2012, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of newB on April 10, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “registration of transfer of ownership in the name of newB”) was completed on April 20, 2012 on the ground of inheritance by consultation and division on April 20, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “division agreement”).

C. On June 20, 2012, the Plaintiff issued a pre-announcement of taxation (hereinafter “pre-announcement of taxation”) with respect to the transfer income tax of this case to the NewB, which is an OOO of the expected amount of tax (hereinafter “instant pre-announcement”). D.B, as of the instant inherited property on July 9, 2012, on the ground of inheritance by agreement division as of July 4, 2012, on July 9, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the instant registration of the transfer of ownership under the name of the said newB on the registration of the transfer of ownership.

E. The newB did not have any property other than the inherited property at the time of completing the registration for revision of ownership of this case to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

(a) Claims for preservation and fraudulent acts;

(1) Determination as to the cause of claim

According to the above facts, since the Plaintiff’s claim for transfer income tax of this case against NewB was established before the amendment agreement of this case, which was the cause of the registration of correction of this case, it becomes subject to the obligee’s right of revocation, and the newB entered into the above agreement with the Defendant without any particular property other than the inherited property of this case, and completed the correction registration thereof to the Defendant on all of the inherited property of this case, and thus, the amendment agreement of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, and barring any special circumstance, it shall be revoked within the limit of the KRWO, which is the amount of the Plaintiff’s preserved claim, and the Defendant

(2) Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion

(A) The Defendant asserts that the instant amendment registration does not constitute a fraudulent act, on the ground that, at the time of the split-off agreement as of April 20, 2012, the newB, the Defendant, ADD, and AE, the heir of ACC at the time of the split-off agreement, was solely inherited the instant inherited property by the Defendant. However, as the newB agreed to keep the title only during the existence of the newB in the future, the registration of the instant amendment was merely an amendment of the name as the actual heir, and thus, it does not constitute a fraudulent act.

Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the registration of correction of this case was merely restored to the name of the defendant, who is the actual heir of AnCC pursuant to the division agreement dated April 20, 2012, and part of the Eul evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2 are stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2. Rather, in full view of the purport of the arguments as a whole, at the time of the division agreement on April 20, 2012, the inherited property of this case is inherited by the newB alone. After the newB died, the newB entered into a correction agreement on April 20, 2012 with the purpose of cancelling the ownership transfer registration under the name of the defendant, who is the heir of the newB, and the newB entered into the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the newB for the purpose of cancelling the ownership transfer income tax in the name of the newB. However, the newB entered into the registration of transfer under the name of this case.

B. Regarding the scope of restitution

(1) The agreement of this case constitutes a fraudulent act and must be revoked within the scope of the OOO members, which is the amount of the Plaintiff’s preserved claim amount. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in subparagraph 1-1 through 5, it is recognized that the sum of the officially announced values of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) is OO members, and that the real estate with the officially announced values equivalent to the difference between the Plaintiff’s preserved claim and the total sum of the officially announced values of the above real estate is nonexistent out of each real estate of this case. According to the above facts of recognition, the value of each real estate of this case is equivalent to OO members, and it is reasonable to deem that the cancellation of the registration of correction of this case concerning each real estate of this case among the inherited property of this case is a minimum amount as the restitution.

(2) On this basis, the Defendant asserts that the instant corrective agreement should be cancelled only with respect to the 3/9 shares of each of the instant real estate, since the instant corrective agreement was waived against the 3/9 shares in the inheritance shares of the newB, it shall be deemed that the newB solely acquired ownership by inheritance of the instant inherited property pursuant to the split-off agreement on April 20, 2012. Thus, the registration of the instant corrective agreement is merely a form of registration of correction or that of the newB, and it is reasonable to view that the Defendant actually renounced the entire ownership of the instant inherited property acquired in accordance with the instant agreement, and therefore, the ownership transfer registration to be cancelled following the revocation of fraudulent act is not a registration of shares in each of the instant real estate, but a registration of shares in each of the instant real estate, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(3) Furthermore, since the defendant asserts that the cancellation of the registration of correction of each of the real estate of this case exceeds the scope of restoration to original state, it is reasonable to view that the total amount of the publication price of each of the real estate of this case exceeds the amount of restoration to original state, as seen earlier, it can be seen that the actual transaction price of each of the real estate of this case would be increased. However, in ordinary cases, there is no evidence to know the actual transaction price of each of the real estate of this case, and eventually, it is difficult to expect the sale price of each of the real estate of this case to be put up for auction and appropriate for the plaintiff's tax claim. In addition, each of the real estate of this case is limited to the purchaser of the real estate of this case as farmland acquisition in order to acquire land, and the purchaser of each of the real estate of this case would also be determined based on the officially announced land price of each of the real estate of this case. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the cancellation of the registration of this case exceeds the scope of restoration to original state is without merit.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the corrective agreement of this case shall be cancelled within the limit of the OOO, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of cancellation of ownership modification registration of this case to the newB.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's primary claim is accepted.