A donation cannot be deemed to have been made solely on the fact that part of the real estate purchase price was remitted.

Since the Defendant, while he remitted part of the real estate purchase price to the Defendant under excess of his obligation, was recognized to have remitted the remitted money to the obligor or used it for the obligor’s repayment of obligation, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was donated part of the purchase price solely on the fact

2012 Ghana 203712 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AA

February 1, 2013

March 8, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The contract of donation between thisA and the defendant shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 000. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

On November 6, 2010, thisA sold OOOO village 0000 (hereinafter “the instant real property”) to the Plaintiff on November 6, 2010. The Plaintiff held to thisA a transfer income tax claim of KRW 000 upon the transfer of the instant real property, and thisA donated the money recorded in the attached list to the Defendant out of the said purchase price under excess of the obligation. Accordingly, thisA and the Defendant’s donation contract on money recorded in the attached list between thisA and the Defendant should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant should pay KRW 00 to the Plaintiff as restitution.

2. Determination

The fact that the Defendant received a total of KRW 000 from the purchase price of the instant real estate as indicated in the separate sheet does not conflict between the parties (However, the down payment was not remitted to the Defendant). However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the respective entries in subparagraphs 1 through 6, and the Defendant may recognize the fact that the transferred money was returned to thisA or used it to repay the obligation of thisA. Considering the above facts, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant received a donation of the said money from thisA, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.