Busan District Court-2015-Gohap-43403 (Law No. 17, 2015)

It is necessary to establish objective and objective evidence that the beneficiary has acted in good faith at the time of the fraudulent act.

Since the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a revocation suit, the beneficiary is responsible for proving his good faith in order to be exempted from his responsibility, and the proof must be supported by objective and objective evidence, etc.

2015Na5205 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Maximum △△△○ 1

Busan District Court Decision 2015Gahap43403 Decided September 17, 2015

February 24, 2016

March 16, 2016

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

A. A donation contract of KRW 220,00,000 entered into on May 3, 2010 between Defendant △△△ and Kim○○, and

The contract of donation of KRW 10,00,000, which was concluded on May 7, 2010, and the contract of donation of KRW 110,392,754, which was concluded on May 7, 201 between Defendant ○○ and Kim○○, respectively, shall be revoked.

B. The Plaintiff shall pay 230,00,000 won, Defendant 110,392,754 won, and each of them shall be paid 5% interest per annum from the day following the day on which this judgment became final to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for use in this case by the court shall be as follows:

Since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420

��제1심 판결문 제5면 제13행의 "피고 김△△은"을 "피고 최△△은"으로 고친다.

��제1심 판결문 제6면 제6행 말미에 아래와 같은 내용을 추가한다.

[Defendant △△△△, even in the trial of the Party, each of the gift activities of this case, shall be deemed as a whole, and shall be deemed as a whole.

However, the above Supreme Court Decision 200Da69026 Decided April 27, 2001, which held by the defendant △△△△△△△ was cited by the defendant △△△△△ for a series of acts of disposal of property as a single act, should be considered in determining whether it is reasonable to judge the existence of each act (the other party to each act of disposal of property is the same, whether each disposition is close to time, whether the other party and the debtor are in a special relationship, whether the other party and the debtor are the same as the motive or opportunity for each disposition, etc.), and it is not appropriate to refer to this case as it differs from the facts of this case in relation to each act of disposal of property."

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants of this case is justified and accepted in all of them.

F. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and all appeals by the defendants are dismissed.