Suwon District Court-2014-B-35188 (Law No. 18, 2015.06)

Act of transferring the ownership of the instant real property to the spouse constitutes a fraudulent act.

(Main) The Defendant’s act of completing the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on the instant real estate becomes a fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff and general creditors including the Plaintiff, and the spouse was aware that there was a shortage of common security due to the instant donation, thereby undermining other creditors. Thus, the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed as the beneficiary.

Article 108 (Fictitious Declaration of Intention in Case of Civil Act)

2015-C-226281 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AA

The second instance decision

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Na35188 Decided June 18, 2015

July 11, 2017

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit claiming that BB donated one half of the instant real estate in its name to the Defendant constituted a fraudulent act and that the gift contract was revoked and the ownership transfer registration was revoked. The Defendant asserted that, as a qualitative owner of the instant real estate, the gift does not constitute a fraudulent act on the ground that BB was returned that the said share was trusted to BB as a qualitative owner of the instant real estate.

For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to support the fact that the Defendant trusted the above shares to BB.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or

2. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the preserved claim against BB and the judgment that BB had been in excess of the obligation at the time of the said donation is clearly indicated in the lower judgment, and thus, the allegation in the grounds of appeal to this effect is not acceptable.

In addition, since the remaining arguments related to this are first asserted in the final appeal, they cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.