Cancellation of a golf membership sales contract and reinstatement order will be a result contrary to the fairness.

It is clear that golf membership sales amount was not a responsible property offered to the general creditors at the time of the sales contract as the price for golf membership, and since the sale and purchase of golf membership was deemed a fraudulent act, it becomes a result that the revocation of the agreement on the donation of golf membership sales proceeds and the reinstatement order goes against the fairness.

2012 Gohap31918 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AAA Planning Corporation and one other

April 11, 2013

May 16, 2013

1. The sales contract for golf membership entered in the separate sheet concluded on June 24, 201 between BB Planning and Defendant AA Planning Co., Ltd. shall be revoked.

2. Defendant AAA Planning Co., Ltd. shall enter the golf membership registration procedure into golf membership as listed in the separate sheet to the BB Planning Co., Ltd.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant LeeCC is dismissed.

4. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant AA Planning Corporation, respectively.

The provisions of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are as follows:

The contract of donation of KRW 000,00, which was concluded on July 13, 201 between Defendant CC and BB Planning Co., Ltd is revoked. Defendant CC shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this decision became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Plaintiff’s credit against BB Planning Co., Ltd.

(1) The Plaintiff has corporate tax and value-added tax bonds and claims related to the amount of delinquent taxes (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax claim”) with the following contents as stated in the BB Planning Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BB Planning”).

(B) [Attachment 1] omitted

(b) Disposition of BB Planning

On June 24, 2011, BB Planning entered into a sales contract with Defendant AAA Planning Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant AAA Planning”) for KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant golf membership”) as to golf membership (hereinafter referred to as “instant golf membership”) recorded in the attached list, which is the only property of the instant golf membership, and completed the transfer procedure on the same day.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including natural disasters, and hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the claim against Defendant AA Planning

(1) The existence of preserved claims

According to the above facts, there are tax claims equivalent to the plaintiff's 000 won against the defendant at the time of the sales contract of this case.

(2) The establishment of fraudulent act

The facts of selling the golf membership of this case, which is the property in the reason of BB planning, to Defendant AAA Planning, are as seen earlier, and thus, the instant sales contract between BB Planning and Defendant AAA Planning is a fraudulent act that causes damage to the general creditors of BB planning, and it is presumed that Defendant AAAA Planning, which is the beneficiary, was aware that the BB planning would thereby prejudice the creditors, and furthermore, Defendant AAAAA Planning, which is the beneficiary, is presumed to have been malicious.

(3) Determination on Defendant AAA Planning’s defense

(A) Defendant AAA Planning, and was unaware of the fact that the BB Planning was in excess of the obligation at the time of the instant sales contract, and was unaware of the fact that the said contract constituted a fraudulent act, but it is not sufficient to recognize the above defenses solely with the descriptions of Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Therefore, the above defenses are without merit.

(나) 피고 AAAA기획은， BBB기획이 피고 AAAA기획에게 이 사건 골프회원권을 매매한 것은 BBB기획이 영업상 부담하고 있던 채무를 변제하고 경색된 자금 사정을 원활하게 하기 위해 이 사건 골프회원권을 BBB기획에 매도담보로 제공한 것이었으므로， 이 사건 매매계약은 사해행위가 아니라고 주장한다. 살피건대， 채무초과상태에 있는 채무자가 그 소유의 재산을 채권자 중의 어느 한 사람에게 채권담보로 제공하는 행위는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 다른 채권자들에 대한 관계에서 사해행위에 해당한다고 할 것이나， 자금난으로 사업을 계속 추진하기 어려운 상황에 처한 채무자가 자금을 융통하여 사업을 계속 추진하는 것이 채무변제력을 갖게 되는 최선의 방법이라고 생각하고 자금을 융통하기 위하여 부득이 부동산을 특정 채권자에게 담보로 제공하거나 신탁하고 그로부터 신규자금을 추가로 융통받았다면， 특별한 사정이 없는 한 채무자의 담보권 설정 내지 신탁행위는 사해행위에 해당하지 않는다(대법원 2001. 5. 8. 선고 2000다50015 판결， 대법원 2003. 12. 12. 선고 2001다 57884 판결 등 참조). 이 사건에 관하여 보건대， 갑 제3호증， 을 제1， 2， 3， 6호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체 의 취지에 의하면 ① BBB기획이 매월 000원 내외의 사업비용을 정기적으로 지 출하고 있었던 사실，② BBB기획이 이 사건 매매계약 당시 사무실 건물 및 전광판의 차임， 대출금 이자， 직원들의 급여 등 각종 채무를 지고 있었던 사실，③ BBB기획이 피고 이CC으로부터 2009. 2. 20.에 000원， 2010. 8. 9.에 000원을 각 차용한 사실，④ BBB기획이 2011. 7. 13. 피고 이CC의 주식회사 우리은행 계좌로 이 사건 골프회원권의 매매대금 000원(이하 '이 사건 골프회원권 매매대금'이라고 한다)을 송금한 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 그러나 위 ① 내지 ④에서 인정한 사실에 의하더라도 ㉮ BBB기획이 이 사건 골프회원권 매매대금을 사업추진을 위해 사용한 것이 아니라 피고 이CC에 대한 차용금채무의 변제를 위해 사용한 점，㉯ 피고 이CC에 대한 채무가 고율의 이자를 수반한다거나，피고 이CC이 BBB기획의 재산에 관하여 강제집행을 하는 등 피고 이CC에 대한 "채무만을 다른 채무에 우선하여 변제하여야 할 이유도 없었던 점에 비추어 볼 때， OOO기획이 이 사건 골프회원권을 매각하여 피고 이CC에 대한 채무를 변제하는 것이 채무변제력을 갖게 되는 최선의 방법이라고 인정하기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다. 따라서 피고 AAAA기획의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

(5) Sub-committee

Therefore, the sales contract of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and Defendant AAA Planning is "the obligation to implement the transfer procedure for golf membership in this case to BB Planning as a restoration to its original state."

B. Determination as to the claim against Defendant ACC

The Plaintiff, and BB Planning, on July 13, 201, sought the revocation of the instant donation agreement and the refund of the instant golf membership purchase price to DefendantCC on the grounds that the instant golf membership purchase price was donated to Defendant LCC, and that the instant golf membership purchase price was the price for the instant golf membership, and that it was apparent that the instant golf membership purchase price was not the responsible property provided to the general creditors at the time of the instant sales agreement, and that the instant golf membership purchase price was not the property provided to the joint security of the general creditors. In addition, as long as the instant golf membership trade was deemed as a fraudulent act, cancellation of the instant golf membership purchase agreement and the instant order to reinstate the portion that was not provided as joint security by the general creditors would be a result contrary to equity. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant AA Planning is reasonable, and the claim against the defendant AA Planning is accepted, and it is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.