An act of donation of his property to another person in excess of his obligation constitutes a fraudulent act.

The fact that the transfer of check money to the Defendant was omitted in excess of the obligation is deemed to have been led to a confession by the Defendant’s failure to clearly dispute the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the debtor’s act of donation of his property to another person under excess of the obligation

2012 Written revocation of Fraudulent Act 2000

Korea

Park AA

May 30, 2012

June 20, 2012

1. The contract of donation of KRW 000, which was concluded on September 26, 201 between the Defendant and BBBS Spain, shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 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.

1. Basic facts

A. Tax claims against the Plaintiff’s BBBBS Spain

As of January 4, 2012, the Plaintiff had value-added tax claim for the amount of 200 won in total of the principal tax and the additional dues for BBS, and the date on which the tax liability is established is December 31, 2010, and the payment deadline is April 15, 201.

B. The process of paying money to the Defendant

BBS Span on February 18, 201, the company received 000 won of the national tax refund due to the request for the correction of value-added tax from one bank account under its name, and on March 7, 2011, the company issued 000 won of the total face value check (one cashier's check of KRW 000 and five cashier's check of KRW 000 of the face value) on September 26, 201, six copies of the said check were deposited into the Defendant's account under the name of the head of ChoG, a joint representative director of BBS.

(c) the status of the property of BBBS at the time of the stock conference;

At the time when BBBS Spain Co., Ltd. pays the above money, its financial status is as follows:

[Basis of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim for revocation of fraudulent act

A. Formation of preserved claims

The Plaintiff’s assertion was not disputed by the Defendant on September 26, 201, that the date on which the duty to pay taxes on the Plaintiff’s taxation claim was established, the date of notice, and the six checks were deposited into the above East Financial Securities Account under the Defendant’s name. As such, the said tax claim can be deemed as the preserved claim for the revocation of the fraudulent act.

(b) The debtor's fraudulent act;

As seen earlier, six copies of the above check were deposited into the account in the name of the defendant on September 26, 201, when six months have elapsed from March 7, 201, the date of its issuance, and as such, the check amount is determined to have been donated to the defendant by BBS. The defendant, and the defendant, on March 7, 201, issued six copies of the above check to the defendant, as retirement allowance for the joint representative director, and the defendant's issuance of six copies of the above check on March 7, 201. According to the evidence No. 11, the defendant's assertion that BBS Spanish was liable to pay KRW 00 to ChoG, but the defendant's payment of KRW 12-1 to 3 of the evidence No. 12-2, while the defendant's payment of KRW 10,000,000 to the other defendant's payment of KRW 10,000,000,000,000.

(c) Presumption of the debtor's intent to commit harm and beneficiary's bad faith;

The fact that BBBS, a corporation, was aware that the above donation to the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act, and that due to this, it would bring about the result of reducing the common security of ordinary creditors. The defendant's bad faith, a beneficiary, is presumed as long as it is acknowledged as one debtor's intention to understand BBBS, a corporation, BBBS.

(d) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

The contract of donation of KRW 000,000, which was concluded on September 26, 201 between BBBS Span and the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act and revoked. The fact that the above amount deposited into the Defendant’s account was fully consumed is deemed to have been led to confession as the Defendant does not clearly dispute the Plaintiff’s assertion. As such, it is impossible to restore the said amount by the method of return of original property following the revocation of fraudulent act, and as compensation for value, the Defendant was obliged to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 00 and 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from the day following the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

E. As to the defendant's defense

The defendant, and the defendant received each of the above checks in order to receive a return of the above checks borrowed from the above Cho GG and his father Kim R. However, as seen above, each of the checks is judged to have been delivered to the defendant by the above company, and the defendant's assertion that the above checks were delivered to the defendant and received as a means to receive the money from the above Cho GG or KimR is insufficient to recognize that only the items of evidence No. 1 to No. 5-3 (including the serial number) are written in each of the above checks, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. The defendant's defense is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.