Suwon District Court-2017-Gohap-17262 (2018.07)

Revocation of Fraudulent Act

(1) Before the Defendant filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, KRW 00, which was sought to return from the revocation of the fraudulent act, was already withdrawn by AA and returned to AA, a debtor. Therefore, there is no benefit in filing a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of a title trust agreement and return of the value thereof.

The contents of the judgment are the same as the attachment.

2018Na2034627 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

***

October 18, 2018

November 13, 2018

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 of KRW 395,00,000,000 entered into between the defendant and AA on January 7, 2013 shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 337,791,290. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 337,791,290 with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this decision became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

Preliminaryly, the Defendant and the AA shall cancel the deposit ownership trust agreement concluded with respect to the act of remitting KRW 395,00,000 on January 7, 2013 to the account of the Nonghyup Bank within the limit of KRW 337,791,290. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 337,791,290 per annum from the day following the date this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds for a judgment of the first instance shall be cited on the grounds of this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act: Provided, That part of them shall be amended or added as follows:

[Supplementary Use]

○ The judgment of the first instance court shall be executed by cutting the “1, 7, 2013...................” with “1, 28, 2012.............”

○ The judgment of the first instance court shall be executed on November 18, 2012, 5 below below the two pages, with "No. 28, 2012."

00-00-00000 on an account number, *********'s account number, 000', 4 below 2th judgment of the first instance court.

○ The 5th written judgment of the first instance court shall consist of “B cargo” with “CC cargo”.

[Supplementary Parts]

○ “The evidence mentioned above” in the 5th 6th eth 6th son of the judgment of the first instance shall be added to “the evidence mentioned above”.

○○ Judgment 6 of the first instance court: “AA has withdrawn all KRW 395,00,00,000” (in this respect, in the case of the instant account opened through the real name verification procedure under the real name verification system, barring any special circumstance, even if the Defendant, the holder of the said account, has the right to claim the return of deposit as the party to the said deposit contract, it is related to the relationship between the financial institution where the said account was opened (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). As for the internal relationship between AA and the Defendant, the debtor, and the Defendant, the title holder of the instant account, there is a mutual agreement between AA and the Defendant that he/she holds the ownership of the deposit claim and proceeds from the management thereof, and thus, AA and the Defendant concluded a title trust agreement with the so-called borrowed account with respect to money remitted to the Defendant’s instant account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da23294, Apr.).

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.