Whether a real estate sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act

In order to raise money to pay delinquent taxes, the real estate of this case was attempted to sell the real estate of this case, and the defendant seems to have been transferred the real estate of this case and paid part of delinquent taxes by preparing money at the end of his friendship with his friendship. However, the above circumstance alone is insufficient to reverse the misunderstanding of the sales contract.

2013 Ghana 100101 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

xAA

June 26, 2013

July 17, 2013

1. The sales contract concluded on July 23, 2012 between the defendant and the non-party B with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked within the scope of the OOB.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff OO and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on July 23, 2012 by the non-party B selling the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") to the defendant who is his mother on July 23, 2012 (hereinafter "the sales contract of this case"). However, this case's real estate was in arrears with taxes of the plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract of this case, and the real estate of this case was its sole real estate. However, the establishment registration of the mortgage for the real estate of this case was completed on October 4, 201 and the establishment of the mortgage of the new bank of the non-party B and the new bank of the non-party B had been completed on August 1, 2012, which was after the conclusion of the sales contract of this case, and the amount of the secured debt at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract of this case, and the value of the real estate of this case was recognized as the O.

In light of the above legal principles, the act of the debtor selling real estate, the sole property of which is one of the creditors, constitutes a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances, and in the event of fraudulent act on real estate on which the right to collateral was established, and the right to collateral security was cancelled, the fraudulent act can only be established within the extent of the balance remaining after deducting the secured debt amount of the right to collateral security from the value of the real estate and seek compensation for the equivalent amount to its original state. In light of the above legal principles, the sales contract in this case constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the plaintiff who is the creditor within the limit of OOO(i.e., OOOO. -OOOO.). The contract in this case is revoked, and the defendant is liable for compensation for its value to the plaintiff at a rate of 5% per annum from the day following the date this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The Defendant, and the Defendant asserted that the conclusion of the instant sales contract was made for the repayment of the arrears of this BB, and thus, it cannot be deemed a fraudulent act. Accordingly, according to the health team, the entries in Eul 1 through 11, and the overall purport of the pleadings in the testimony of the witness RedCC, the instant real estate was attempted to sell the instant real estate in order to raise money for the payment of delinquent taxes, and the Defendant appears to have paid part of delinquent taxes by preparing the instant real estate after the transfer to the end of this BB and his relatives. However, this circumstance alone is insufficient to reverse the historicality of the instant sales contract recognized earlier. The foregoing argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.