It is difficult to readily conclude that the transfer of real estate by an obligor constitutes a fraudulent act as a division of property exceeding a considerable degree.

It is reasonable to deem that the building was donated with consolation money and the division of property following divorce. In light of the fact that there is no evidence to deem the building as the only property of the debtor, it is difficult to readily conclude that the transfer of the real estate in this case constitutes a fraudulent act as the excessive division of property beyond a considerable degree

2012. Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

The AA

August 23, 2012

September 6, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

NAB and the Defendant on February 2, 2009 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet between the Defendant

The sales contract and the sales contract concluded on March 10, 2009 are revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 000 and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. HeB, who was the husband of the defendant, had been the defendant, sold OB in Suwon-si OB 000 to 353.1

On April 27, 2007, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport sold one parcel and the building on the ground (hereinafter referred to as the "transfer object of this case") to KRW 000,000, and on April 27, 2007, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport completed the transfer registration of ownership on the transfer object of this case to another person.

B. HB on August 30, 2007, the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) shall be the real estate to KimD on August 30, 2007

D) Title trust was held in title, and on September 5, 2007, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the future KimD with respect to the instant real estate.

C. On May 14, 2008, KimD entered into a promise to trade KRW 000 on the instant real estate with KimE, and completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as the “provisional registration of this case”) in the name of KimE.

D. On February 2, 2009, the Defendant entered into a contract with Kim E-E under which the right to claim the transfer of ownership on the instant real estate is to be acquired in KRW 000 (hereinafter “instant one contract”).

On February 3, 2009, KimE notified the transfer to KimD, and completed the transfer registration of the provisional registration of this case in the future of the defendant.

E. As between March 10, 2009 and KimD, the Defendant entered into a contract to purchase the instant real estate in KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as "the instant two contract", and "the instant one and two contracts" collectively), and on May 6, 2009, entered into a provisional registration of the instant real estate.

The principal registration is completed.

F. Around January 7, 2009, the Defendant and AB agreed to divorce, and the agreement was confirmed on April 8, 2009 by Suwon District Court No. 2009No. 139, and reported divorce on April 10, 2009.

G. On January 4, 2010, the director of the tax office of the same orchard under the Plaintiff notified on February 23, 2010 that 522,518,390 won of the transfer income tax on the subject of the instant transfer should be paid by the due date for payment, but B did not pay it up to the present date.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, 8, Eul evidence 1 and 2

(including), the whole purport of the pleading;

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On September 5, 2007, HB held the title of the instant real estate to KimD, and then transferred the title of the instant real estate to the Defendant again because, if it appears that it is the actual owner of the instant real estate, and that KimD is merely a title trustee of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff would be likely to take a disposition to collect delinquent taxes on the instant real estate. On February 2, 2009, the instant one contract was concluded between the Defendant and KimE on February 2, 2009, between the Defendant and the Defendant on March 10, 2009, and the instant two contracts were concluded respectively with the Defendant on March 10, 2009, but all these contracts are deemed to be the most unfair act, and in fact, between HB and the Defendant.

B. However, inasmuch as the B, which was in excess of the debt, donated or trusted the instant real estate, which is the only property of BB, to the Defendant, each of the instant contracts constitutes a fraudulent act.

applicable.

C. In addition, voluntaryB and the Defendant, even though the agreement was reached on April 10, 2009, they would be for the purpose of evading obligations.

The act of transferring the instant real property, which is the only property division, to the Defendant, is merely the most complicated, and the act of transferring the instant real property to the Defendant by means of division of property is beyond its reasonableness.

D. Therefore, each of the instant contracts should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 000 and the damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the instant one contract

Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”) invalidates any change in the real rights to the real estate made by a registration under a title trust agreement and a title trust agreement. According to the above facts of recognition, since the title trust agreement entered into between HB and KimD and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of KimD concerning the instant real estate are null and void under Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Real Estate Real Name Act, the real owner of the instant real estate is BB. However, since the real owner of the instant real estate cannot oppose E, the real owner of the instant real estate cannot oppose E who is the real right holder of a provisional registration on the ground that it is invalid, in light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to view that the instant one contract concluded between the Defendant and KimE is the most unfair act, or that the contracting party is the Defendant and NABB. Therefore, there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

B. Determination as to the instant two contracts

As seen earlier, the mere fact that the real owner of the instant real estate is a BB is the actual owner of the instant real estate is the parties to the instant contract concluded between the Defendant and KimD, or it is difficult to deem the parties to the instant contract as a BB with the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion

C. Determination on whether the division of property exceeds the reasonableness of division of property

As alleged by the plaintiff 1 and 2, it is difficult to conclude that the above 0G 1 and 2 were 0G 1 and the above 0G 2 were 0G 1 and the defendant's 2 were 0G 1 and the above 10G 2 were 0G 1 and there were 8G 20 and the above 0G 10 were 8G 20 and there were 0G 20 and there were 8G 10 and the above 0G 208G 9 were 0 and there were no reasonable grounds to view that the above 0G 10 were 0 and the above 0G 9G 20 were 0 and there were no reasonable grounds to believe that there were 0G 10 and 208G 9 were 0 and there were no reasonable grounds to believe that there were 9G 20 and there were no special grounds to view that the property division of the defendant's 1 and 200G 201.

4. Conclusion

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