Since the assignment of claims is not in excess of obligations, it is not a fraudulent act.

Since the assignment of claims is not in excess of obligations, it is not a fraudulent act.

2014 Gohap 573312 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

○○ ○

March 26, 2015

April 9, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

On January 14, 2014, the assignment of claims concluded by the former Defendant working in the Gu and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Supplementary Intervenor”) with respect to the claims listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked. The Defendant transfers the above claims to a supplementary intervenor, and the Defendant gives notice of the assignment of claims to AAA Investment Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “AAA Investment Development”).

1. Facts of premise;

A. Claims against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor

○ The director of the ○○ Tax Office, under the Plaintiff’s control, determined and notified the supplementary intervenor’s total amount of KRW 321,369,420, and notified the supplementary intervenor’s total amount of KRW 321,369,420, while the supplementary intervenor did not pay the above notified amount of tax.

As of January 9, 2015, 118,66,070 won in total (including additional 34,095,970 won) of the amount in arrears, including the above corporate tax, etc. of the Intervenor was corrected for the Intervenor.

(b) Assignment contract between the assistant intervenor and the defendant;

On July 29, 2013, 2013, the ○ Intervenor agreed to the effect that “the Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap81086, paid to the supplementary intervenor an agreed amount of KRW 1 billion by March 31, 2014, the dispute over the said lawsuit will be settled.”

On January 14, 2014, the Intervenor transferred the claim for the agreed amount of KRW 1 billion for AA Investment Development to the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “transfer of claim”). On January 15, 2014, the Intervenor notified the transfer of claim for AA Investment Development and notified it on January 16, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 8, 10 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

○ At the time of the instant assignment of claims, the value of active property owned by the Intervenor was KRW 1,815,849,300 in total as shown in the attached Table (1). The value of the Intervenor’s passive property was a total of KRW 3,501,369,420 as shown in the attached Table (2) and thus, the Intervenor had already been in excess of his/her obligation.

○ Accordingly, the assignment of claims in this case constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditor of the Intervenor, including the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff seeks the revocation thereof and restitution following the revocation.

3. Determination

We examine whether the supplementary intervenor was in excess of the obligation at the time of the assignment of claims of this case, or whether the supplementary intervenor was in excess of the obligation.

1) In a preparatory document dated January 10, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that “the Intervenor’s debt 1,500,000,000,000 won exists as the Intervenor’s passive property at the time of the instant transfer of claim” as the Intervenor’s passive property at the time of the instant transfer of claim. However, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the sum of the value of the negative property is KRW 4,501,369,420. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Intervenor’s debt owed to the Defendant does not exist in the above preparatory document and the preparatory document dated March 24, 2015 (the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s claim was accepted as a substitute for the repayment of the Intervenor’s debt owed to the Defendant, by denying the illegality of the instant transfer of claim, and that the Plaintiff asserted that the sum of the value of the negative property is KRW 3,501,369,420,000, as the Plaintiff’s debt owed to the Defendant.”

A. The fact that the Intervenor, at the time of the instant transfer of claims, had owned the same properties as the details indicated in the attached Table (1) at the time of the instant transfer of claims does not have any dispute between the parties.

However, it is argued that the sum of the actual value of the active property is KRW 4,600,000,000 (i.e., claim 1,000,000,000 for AAA Investment Development + claim 3,600,000,000 for B) as stated in the column of the above table, but the statement in subparagraph 3-2 of the evidence No. 3-2 is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, it is deemed that the Plaintiff is the sum of KRW 1,815,849,300 for the Plaintiff.

B. Petty property

First of all, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Intervenor issued convertible bonds of KRW 3,180,00,000 on September 21, 2009 only with respect to whether the Intervenor was liable for the obligations specified in paragraph (1) in the attached Table (2) at the time of the instant transfer of assignment of claims. There is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Intervenor was liable for the issuance of convertible bonds of KRW 3,180,00,000 on September 21, 2009. Rather, in full view of each of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 3-1, 4-1, 2, 9-1, 2, 10-1, 10-4 of the evidence Nos. 3-1, 4-1, 2, 10-2, and 10-1 through 4 of the evidence Nos. 3-2 and the entire purport of the pleadings, the Intervenor’s assertion that the Intervenor was not liable for the acquisition of the above convertible bonds of KRW 3,180,0,00.

C. Whether the assistant intervenor's debt exceeds the debt

Therefore, even if the plaintiff's assertion as to the remaining value of the supplementary intervenor's negative property (321,369,420 won as stated in Paragraph (2) of the attached Table) claimed by the plaintiff is acknowledged, the value is below 1,815,849,300 won, which is the sum of the active value of the intervenor's active property of the supplementary intervenor as the plaintiff, and thus, it cannot be said that the supplementary intervenor was in excess of his/her obligation at the time of the transfer of assignment of claims in this case, or that the supplementary intervenor was in excess of his

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the assignment of claims in this case cannot be viewed as a fraudulent act, the plaintiff's claim based on this premise is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

2) As seen in the preceding Note 1, the Plaintiff alleged that the Intervenor’s obligation of KRW 1,00,000,000 to the Defendant of the Intervenor was in existence as a passive property, and even if such assertion is acknowledged, it is true that the total amount of passive property (which is KRW 1,321,369,420) falls short of the total amount of active property.