Whether a person is a bona fide person who acquired a loan claim in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act

In light of the fact that a debtor is unable to submit the details of remittance of a loan, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that he/she had a loan claim, and the debtor, who is in excess of his/her obligation, is also liable for a fraudulent act because the debtor's act of accord and satisfaction of real estate

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

1. The sales contract concluded on October 2, 2006 between the defendant and Kim ○-ok is revoked.

2. The defendant shall implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the transfer registration of shares completed on October 13, 2006 by the Seoul Western District Court in the Bupyeong District Court in the attached list as to each real estate stated in the attached list.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the contents of Gap evidence 1 through 6 and the purport of all pleadings:

A. On April 15, 2006, Kim Dong-dong, Seoul ○○○○○○○○ apartment, 825 North Korea 507 dong-dong, 504, sold to Y○○○, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 10, 2006, and submitted a transfer income tax report to Y○○○ on October 31, 2006. The Sungdong-dong notified that he will pay KRW 82,876,870 for the transfer of the above real estate until January 31, 207 (the date on which the liability to pay capital gains tax was established is August 10, 2006).

B. On October 13, 2006, Kim Jong-han completed each share transfer registration to the Defendant on October 2, 2006 with respect to each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet, the sole property owned by it (hereinafter “each of the real estates in this case”).

2. Determination

A. Establishment of obligee's right of revocation

According to the above facts, it is presumed that the transfer registration of ownership was completed on the ground of sale and purchase of each of the instant real estate, which is the only property of the debtor, under the status of over obligations, and the defendant was presumed to have been aware of the fraudulent act. Thus, the sale and purchase contract between Kim ○ and the defendant on October 2, 2006 should be revoked, and the transfer registration of shares on October 13, 2006 for each of the instant real estate should be revoked, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the above, the defendant lent to Kim ○-do a sum of KRW 50 million on March 31, 2004, and lent KRW 24 million on June 7, 2005, the defendant owned a loan claim of KRW 50 million on a total. However, since each of the of the of the of the instant real estate was paid in kind under the pretext of repayment for KRW 34 million out of the bonds, the defendant was paid in kind to Kim ○-do at the time of the payment in kind, and was unaware of the fact that there was a tax obligation against the plaintiff at the time of payment in kind,

Therefore, in light of the fact that the defendant did not submit the details of remittance of the loan to Kim ○, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the defendant had a loan claim of 50 million won against Kim ○ at the time when the transfer registration of shares in each of the of the of the of the of the of the of the instant real estate was completed, and even if such facts are acknowledged, the act of accord and satisfaction of the real estate, which is the only property of the specific creditor, to another creditor, is also a fraudulent act. In light of whether the defendant was unaware of the existence of the tax obligation of Kim ○ at the time of the payment in kind, the maximum amount of 10 million won against Kim ○, which was the claim of approximately 10 million won, was transferred to Kim ○, the transfer registration in the name of the defendant was completed with respect to each of the instant real estate and demanded repayment to Kim ○, and there was no evidence to acknowledge the testimony of the above provisional registration by the witness in the name of Kim ○ on October 13, 2006.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.