As a fraudulent act, there is a duty to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration.

Unless there are special circumstances, since the fact that the sale of real estate in excess of the obligation at the time of the sales contract is easily converted into money, the joint security is reduced in relation to general creditors, and the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer is duty

201Gaz. 28643 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

ICA et al.

August 22, 2012

September 26, 2012

1. With respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2 between Defendant A and the lowestCC, July 2010

20.Each sales contract concluded on July 22, 2010 with respect to each of the real estate listed in the same list 3 through 8, concluded on July 22, 2010, and between Defendant AuthorityB and the leastCC, and concluded on July 28, 2010 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate list 9 and 10, signed on July 28, 2010, and on August 3, 2010.

The contract of sale shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff, and

A. With respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2, the defendant Daegu District Court of the Daegu District Court of the District Court of the Daegu District Court of the District Court of the District Court of the District Court of the District Court of the District Court of the District Court of the District Court of the District Court of the District Court of the District Court of the District Court of the District Court of the District Court of the Daegu as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 5801, and the list 3 through 6, the Daegu District Court of the District Court of the District Court of the Daegu as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2, and the registration of cancellation of each ownership transfer registration completed under the separate sheet 42512, which was received on July 26, 2010.

B. With respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 9 and 10, the defendant AuthorityB shall implement the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 61822 of the same court as of July 30, 2010 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 9 and 10 and the registration for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 61822 of the same court as of July 30, 2010.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. During the value-added tax period from January 2, 2006 to January 1, 2009, the chief of the tax office under the Plaintiff-affiliated tax office shall conduct a on-site investigation with respect to the leastCC with respect to the act of purchasing non-data and subsidiary materials, which the largestCC bought from the DDgll Co., Ltd., Ltd. with respect to the act of carrying out a building re-building business, and then notified the payment of value-added tax and global income tax as listed in the following table to the largestCC on October 1, 2010, but the maximumCC did not pay it, and thus, the delinquent tax amount is KRW 00.

B. The highestCC concluded a sales contract for each real estate listed in the separate sheet with the Defendants, as listed below, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants as stated in Section 2 of the order (hereinafter collectively referred to as the 1 to 5 kb, and collectively referred to as the “instant sales contract”).

C. At the time of the instant sales contract, the largestCC was in excess of its obligations.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Formation of preserved claims

According to the above basic facts, the Plaintiff’s basic facts as to the highestCC at the time of the instant sales contract.

A. That is, the obligee’s right of revocation is the preserved claim because the claim for taxation as described in the paragraph has been held.

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

The fact that the highestCC, which is in excess of the obligation at the time of the instant sales contract, was changed to money that can be easily sold and consumed by selling each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Defendants is considered to constitute a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would reduce joint security in relation to the general creditors, including the Plaintiff, and would prejudice the general creditors including the Plaintiff, and in light of the developments and timing of the sales contract, it is reasonable to deem that the most B had the intention of deception, and further, the Defendants’ bad faith, the beneficiary, is presumed to have been presumed.

C. The defendants' good faith defense

The Defendants, as they purchased a fair price with the knowledge of the maximum amount of obligation overCC at the time of the instant sales contract, were the bona fide beneficiary.

(1) Determination as to Defendant A’s competent authority

In light of the fact that Defendant 1 had been supplied with money to the maximum extent possible under the first purchase agreement, and that it was 00 won on the day of the contract, and that the sum of 00 won was 00 won on July 21, 2010, and that it was 00 won on the day of the contract with Defendant 2, and that it was 00 won on July 27, 2010, and that it was 100 won in total for the remaining accounts and expenses of Defendant 1 had not been settled between the parties, but there was no dispute between them, and that it was 17 through 19, and that there was no other evidence regarding the payment of the remaining money to Defendant 1 to the maximum extent possible under the first purchase agreement, and that there was no other evidence regarding the payment of the money under the first purchase agreement between the Plaintiff 1 and the Plaintiff 2, and that there was no other evidence regarding the payment of the money under the first purchase agreement between the Plaintiff 1 and the Plaintiff 3.

Lo, Defendant A’s defenses are without merit.

(2) Determination as to Defendant TitleB

In light of the fact that the sales contract for the above 4B had not been entered into for 00 won on the date of the contract, and that the 00 won in total was not entered for 00 won on July 30, 2010, and that there was no other evidence to prove that the above 4B had been entered for 00 won in the sales contract for the above 4B, and that there was no other evidence to prove that the above 4B had been entered for 00 won in the first time on the sales contract for the purchase and sale of the real estate, and that there was no other evidence to prove that the 1B had been entered for 00 won in the sales contract for the above 4B, and that there was no other evidence to prove that the 1B had been entered for 00 won in the first time on the sales contract for the real estate, and that there was no other dispute between the parties and the 3137th day on the sales contract for the instant real estate, and that there was no other evidence to prove that the 10000 won was entered for 313137.

(d) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Therefore, according to the Plaintiff’s obligee’s exercise of obligee’s right of revocation, the instant sales contract between the largestCC and the Defendants must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and there are no special circumstances that need to return the value by means of restitution, and the Defendants are obliged to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration as stated in paragraph (2) of this Article to the largestCC by means of return

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants was justified, and thus, it is decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.