Kimcheon-2015-Ban-30615 ( April 27, 2016)

The use of real estate transfer proceeds with a spouse's account constitutes a fraudulent act.

(As in the judgment of the first instance court), the portion of real estate transfer proceeds and the amount of transfer proceeds received from the spouse's account shall be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, but the gift contract shall not be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, but the portion received from the spouse's account and used again by the transferor shall not constitute a fraudulent act.

2016Na22593 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Balebia, a lawsuit taken over by the deceased ○○

Daegu District Court Decision 2015Da30615 Decided April 27, 2016

June 1, 2017

June 22, 2017

1. The part of the main claim against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance that ruled against the plaintiff who falls under any of the following shall be revoked:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 31,800,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day immediately following the day of this judgment to the day of full payment.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 40% is borne by the Plaintiff, and 60% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

A. The primary purport of the claim

The agreement on donation of each money listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 4 entered into between the deceased ○○ and the co-defendant ○○○○ in the first instance trial shall be revoked. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day this ruling became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

B. Preliminary purport of claim

The agreement on title trust of deposit holders with respect to each money listed in the separate sheet concluded between ○○○ and ○○○○○ on Bilateral Agricultural Cooperative (Account Number 7***************) shall be revoked. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 68,00,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Paragraph (1) shall apply.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court concerning the instant case is as follows, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding or using the following matters. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. A portion used for adding or cutting;

In addition, the following shall be added to the three 14th 14th 14th 15th 15th 15th 15th 2th 3th 2th 3th 2th 3th 200.

“F. Of the deceased’s inheritors, 000, ○○ filed a renunciation of inheritance with the Daegu Family Court Kimcheon Branch of 2015 on August 18, 2015, and the said report was accepted as of September 8, 2015.”

In the court of first instance, 7th to 20th, 7th, 12th to 20th, 'reparing and restoring' parts are as follows:

(d) Cancellation and reinstatement.

The instant donation contract concluded between the deceased and 000 shall be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act. Restoration to its original state, the deceased shall pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 53 million (10 million + KRW 5 million + KRW 38 million). The deceased died after the fraudulent act in this case, and the deceased’s wife 00 on September 8, 2015 reported the renunciation of inheritance of the deceased’s property on September 8, 2015. Accordingly, the Defendant, a child, inherited the deceased’s property alone. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 53 million per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following the date the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's main claim shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition, and all other main claims and conjunctive claims against the defendant shall be dismissed without merit. Since the part concerning the main claim against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the main claim against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the main claim against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance against which the above additional payment order is ordered shall be revoked, and