2016 Ghana 339623 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea Light Asset Management Loan Co., Ltd.

A

February 9, 2017

March 16, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. B and the Defendant’s agreement on the division of inherited property on May 4, 2016 with respect to shares in 2/11 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked within the scope of KRW 11,239,598.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 11,239,598 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 complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 11, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B against the Seoul Northern District Court No. 2014Gaso35760, and received a favorable judgment from the court on February 11, 2015 that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 8,685,149, and delay damages therefor.” The above judgment became final and conclusive. C (1955) was married with the Defendant (1952) and died on February 26, 2016. The Deceased acquired the ownership transfer registration of the apartment on the following grounds: (a) on September 20, 2005, after consultation on the division of the inherited property (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”) on March 16, 202, Defendant 206 (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 4, 6, and 10 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings, and 2. The plaintiff's assertion (restatement of fraudulent act and restitution to original state) that Eul transferred 2/11 of the apartment of this case to the defendant through the consultation division of this case constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is the general creditor of Eul. Therefore, the above consultation division should be revoked within the extent of the amount of the plaintiff's claim against Eul (11,239,598 won). Since the existing establishment registration of mortgage was cancelled after the above consultation division and ownership transfer registration, the above amount of claim and damages for delay should be paid in the way that the defendant directly pays to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the issue

A. Key issue

In this case, the issue is whether the defendant can be seen as a bona fide beneficiary, that is, whether the defendant knew that the defendant would prejudice the creditor in the course of the division of the consultation with B.

B. Determination

Corporation 1 and 2, the fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding with respect to the director of Busan Jin registry office

The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the order to submit financial transaction information to the Korean Commercial Accident Insurance Co., Ltd. and the purport of the entire pleadings. ① The Defendant maintained a normal marital life while maintaining a long-term marital life with the deceased (specificly, the Defendant transferred the deceased’s domicile to Busan-gu G on December 30, 1977, and continued to maintain the same address in 1978. In particular, from November 1, 2005 to 10 years after the deceased’s death, the Defendant moved to the apartment of this case where the deceased’s spouse’s death first and transferred his/her share in the form of an inherited property division, which is consistent with our society’s moral sense. The transfer of property is a custom that is recognized as having been in accordance with the duty to support the deceased’s property by forming a fraudulent act and maintaining the property’s contribution to the deceased’s family’s living together or maintaining the property’s living together with the property’s contribution to the deceased’s living together with the property’s contribution to the deceased’s living together.

② Although the apartment of this case was acquired under the name of the Deceased, the Defendant also contributed to the acquisition and maintenance of the apartment of this case (the deceased had already been used for cerebral blood around December 2005 prior to the acquisition of the apartment of this case on 2005, which had not been financially contributed to her home, and there seems to have been serious illness to the point that it would be difficult for the deceased to move her own as a result of her own care, and the Defendant appears to have ever her household care at the time of the acquisition of the apartment of this case. Furthermore, the Defendant raised more than half of the funds for acquiring real estate with the loan of 118,000,000 won from the Korea Commercial Policy Co., Ltd. under the name of the Deceased at the time of the acquisition of the apartment of this case, and the Defendant did not know that the value of the apartment of this case was more than 100,000 won in the case where it was established on May 31, 2016.

In full view of such a series of circumstances, it is extremely difficult to view that the Defendant was aware that it would prejudice the obligee B, and thus, the Defendant ought to be deemed a bona fide beneficiary. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the Defendant is a malicious beneficiary is difficult to accept.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Laos