The limited real estate sales contract should be revoked by fraudulent act.

The real estate sales contract between the defendant and the delinquent should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

Gwangju District Court 2016Kadan512786

○○ State

○ Kim

2017.03.14

2017.04.18

1. The sales contract concluded 200. 0. 0 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and AA shall be revoked to the extent of ○○ Won.

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff ○○○ and the Plaintiff 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.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Basic facts

A. The director of the BB tax office under the Plaintiff-affiliated BB notified AA, who is the Defendant’s punishment, of the payment period on 200.0.00, the date of the payment period, 200.00.

B. AA did not pay the said capital gains tax by the due date. As of 00, 200, the amount of delinquent local taxes, including additional ○○, as of 0,000. AA entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on 0, 200, on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) with the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on 0.0,00 following day.

D. At the time of the instant sales contract, AA was insolvent in which the passive property exceeds the positive property.

E. At the time of the instant sales contract, the market value of the instant real estate is a total of KRW 00,000,000, and the Defendant, after the instant sales contract, completed the establishment registration of the establishment of the maximum debt amount of KRW 00,000 on the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

According to the above facts, AA’s conclusion of a sales contract with the defendant on the instant real estate in excess of its obligation constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is the creditor, and AA knew that it would prejudice the plaintiff, who is the creditor due to the conclusion of the sales contract, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the defendant’s bad faith as the beneficiary on this point is presumed.

In this regard, the defendant alleged that he was bona fide due to the lack of knowledge of the obligation relationship of AA, but the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, so the contract of this case, which is a fraudulent act

On the other hand, with respect to restitution following the cancellation of fraudulent act, since the right to collateral security was established on 2000,00,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

3. Conclusion

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