beta
Text
1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet between B and the Defendant, on March 2013.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff’s credit B, from December 10, 204 to November 17, 2008, engaged in the construction business under the trade name “D” in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, “D,” and did not pay value-added tax and comprehensive income tax.
B. On April 30, 2013, B entered into a gift agreement with the Defendant on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and completed the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) on May 15, 2013.
C. Insolvent B, at the time of entering into the instant gift agreement, the Plaintiff was liable for the amount of taxes in arrears with KRW 116,236,800, including additional taxes, and the amount of loans owed to the Daegu Agricultural Cooperatives was 80 million.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 10, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination on whether to revoke a fraudulent act
A. Tax claims against the plaintiff as to preserved claims and fraudulent acts are preserved claims against the plaintiff as to the revocation of the fraudulent act in this case.
Meanwhile, barring special circumstances, the act of a debtor in excess of his/her obligation donated to another person the only real estate owned by him/her constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the obligees, barring special circumstances, the instant donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act.
B. 1) B, as the Defendant donated the instant apartment, which is the only real estate owned by it, in excess of the debt, to the Defendant, was aware that the creditors’ joint collateral was caused, and as long as the obligor’s will to commit the act was proved, the Defendant’s intention of deception is presumed to be the beneficiary. 2) As to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that it is his bona fide beneficiary, but the submitted evidence alone is insufficient to recognize it.
Rather, it is true.