Seoul Central District Court-2014-Gohap-562916 ( March 30, 2015)

Only if a public official becomes aware of only some of the elements of a fraudulent act, it cannot be deemed that the State has recognized the existence and intent of the fraudulent act.

Only if a public official in charge of different duties becomes aware of only some of the elements of a fraudulent act in the course of performing his/her duties, the State to which the public official belongs cannot be deemed to have recognized the existence of a fraudulent act and the intention of deception.

2015Na202670 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

000 and 2 others

National Rotations

October 15, 2015

November 19, 2015

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

A. Revocation of each gift contract between 000 and the Defendants listed in the separate sheet

B. Defendant 00 million won, Defendant 000 million won, Defendant 000 million won, Defendant 000 won, Defendant 000 won, and Defendant 000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final to the day when the above amount is fully paid.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following items to the fifth page 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

"The defendant's public official in charge of the plaintiff's fraudulent act should be deemed to have known that the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the public official in charge of the plaintiff was aware of due to the nature of the state organization. Even if the public official who prepared the written review of write-off of deficits knew of each of the donations of this case, the plaintiff had already known of 000 gift by reporting the gift tax of the defendants, and recognized 000 debts in the process of write-off of deficits, so at the latest at the time of write-off, the plaintiff should have been aware of the fraudulent act at the latest at the time of write-off of deficits. However, in the case of multiple countries where the public official in charge of the affairs related to the debtor's fraudulent act was aware of some of the elements of the fraudulent act in the course of performing the affairs, it cannot be said that the public official in charge of different affairs knew of the existence of the fraudulent act and his intention to

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and all appeals by the defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.