Suwon District Court-2018-Ban-517038 ( October 16, 2018)

In the event that there is no debtor's intention of deception, the requirement for a fraudulent act lawsuit is not established.

Even if a gift contract was concluded, if it is not deemed that there was an obligor’s intent to commit a fraudulent act, the requirements for a fraudulent act lawsuit are not established.

2018Na85099 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

OO

Suwon District Court Decision 2018Da517038 Decided October 16, 2018

March 27, 2019

April 17, 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The contract of donation concluded between the defendant and AA with respect to the real estate stated in the attached Form shall be revoked, and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day after the date of conclusion of this judgment to the day of full payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court's decision is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments to the new argument of this Court by this Court, and therefore, this Court's decision is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judgment on new arguments

The Plaintiff asserts that, after becoming the representative director of the non-party company, AA shall receive a false tax invoice, and include a park in order to operate the business, the Plaintiff closed down the non-party company on 20OO on 2012 and reported the corporate tax for 20OO on 24 OO on 2013.O.O.O., 200 after the date of the above corporate tax return. In light of the circumstances under which the instant donation contract was concluded, it is reasonable to view that AA was a donation of the instant real estate, which is the only property of the principal at the time of the occurrence of a concern that AA would impose tax on the principal in the future, and that AA shall be deemed as a donation of the instant real estate, which is the only property of the principal at the time of its occurrence.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 5 submitted by the plaintiff in this court, the fact that the non-party company closed its business on O.O.O.O., and the non-party company reported the 20O business year corporate tax as the representative of the non-party company on O.O.O.O. around 2013. Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the actual operator of the non-party company appears to have been BB, the non-party company appears to have been a partner of AA (Evidence Nos. 3 and 5). The general investigation of value-added tax on the non-party company started on O.O., around 2016, the tax liability was finalized only after the non-party company reported its corporate tax base and tax amount, and it is insufficient to conclude that the non-party company entered into the donation contract of this case by concerns that the real estate of this case after the tax investigation of AA was conducted, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.