a fraudulent act of selling real property, the sole responsible property of which is to reduce tax liabilities.

The act of a tax obligor to enter into a real estate sales contract, which is the substantially only responsible property between the defendant and others, constitutes a fraudulent act as an act of reducing joint security with other creditors including the plaintiff, and the intention to commit suicide and the defendant's bad faith is presumed.

2012 Gohap 50866 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

The AA

September 6, 2012

September 27, 2012

1. The sales contract concluded on July 7, 201 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and KimB shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 000.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 207,484,960 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final 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. Facts of recognition;

(a) Formation of a preserved claim;

The head of the Pakistan Tax Office, etc. under the Plaintiff notified KimB of KRW 000 of the comprehensive real estate holding tax for 2006 as the payment period on February 28, 2007. The amount of KRW 000 of the comprehensive real estate holding tax for 2007 as the payment period on April 15, 2008, and on October 18, 2007, the amount of KRW 000 of the transfer income tax for 00 OO apartment 000,000 (hereinafter “O apartment”) for the Seocho-gu Seoul OO apartment 00,000,000 (hereinafter “O apartment”) as the payment period on April 2, 2010, while KimB was notified of KRW 00 as the total payment period on April 2, 2010, while KimB was in arrears with the payment of KRW 00

B. Disposition by KimB

(1) On July 16, 1999, KimB acquired No. 000 of OO apartment O2, 000 (OO apartment O2, 000) out of 1,00, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the maximum debt amount of the Bank on March 31, 2006, at the Industrial Bank of Korea on March 31, 2006; however, on January 23, 2007, the Seoul Central District Court 2007Mo2481 (hereinafter referred to as the "the auction of this case"), while the auction of this case was being conducted, the real estate of this case was reconstructed into each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case"); and thereafter, the head of the Pakistan District Tax Office seized the real estate of this case on July 29, 207, which is the kind of demand for distribution of this case.

3) After that, on July 7, 2011, KimB entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the instant real estate, which is the only property value of intellectual property, with the purchase price of KRW 880 million, and with the following special terms (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Seoul Central District Court registration No. 40163 on July 13, 201.

[Matters of Special Agreement]

* These articles are special articles in progress of auction, and they are agreed as follows:

1. The buyer shall pay to the seller the remaining amount, excluding 000 won for the auction execution cost, the maximum debt amount of the creditor who has applied for the voluntary auction, and 000 won for the delivery at the Seocho-gu office within the period of demand for distribution, and 000 won for the remainder, which shall be paid to the seller.

2. In addition to the above Paragraph 1, defects of the above real estate shall be removed by the parties to the sale and purchase from all without dividends at the time of auction.

3. Since the Supreme Court’s final judgment became final and conclusive that the part attached to the PP and PP from among the defects in the foregoing article was invalid, the parties to the transaction need not raise any question.

4. If the buyer wishes to own the above article fully, he shall transfer the ownership, suspend the auction by depositing the maximum debt amount of the creditor who trusted the auction, and proceed with the procedure for cancellation of the collateral, and the purchaser shall proceed with the procedure for cancellation of the collateral.

5. Both parties to a transaction shall not raise any objection to each other, such as the defects in sale as a security after the transaction.

6. If the buyer owns the goods, the buyer shall be held liable for the final lien on the goods.

4) Meanwhile, on July 7, 2011, the date on which the instant sales contract was concluded, the instant real estate was awarded to PH at the highest bidder and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the H on August 5, 2011 (the Defendant was excluded from the distribution procedure of the instant auction, and was rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff et al. on December 20, 201, to the effect that the Defendant filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Plaintiff et al. to rectify the dividend amount to KRW 000,000 against the said court, and the Plaintiff et al. appealed on the appeal, but was sentenced to the Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na17020 on July 26, 2012, and currently Supreme Court Decision 2012Da201526 on July 26, 2012).

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 7, and Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

Unless there are special circumstances, the debtor's act of selling real estate, which is one of his own exclusive property, and changing it into money or transferring it to another person without compensation, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor. Therefore, the debtor's intention of deception is presumed, and the burden of proof that the purchaser or the transferor did not maliciously exist is presumed to have been the beneficiary (Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41875 Decided April 24, 2001). As seen earlier, the act of entering into the sales contract of this case with respect to the real estate of this case, which is the substantially only responsible property between the defendant and the defendant on July 7, 2011, which is the act of reducing joint security between the plaintiff and other creditors, including the plaintiff, constitutes a fraudulent act, and it is presumed that KimB's intention to harm and the defendant's bad faith has also been presumed.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

In light of the above facts, the defendant would purchase the above real estate by paying 00 won to the above 1B, and the above 200 won for the sale of the real estate from KimB at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and the request for delivery or seizure was made after KimB at the time of the auction of this case, and the imposition of capital gains tax on the OB apartment at the time of the final decision of the Supreme Court (2010Da1898) is invalid, and KimB at the time of the above request for the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership against the successful bidder at the above 200,00 won for the above 70,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 20,000 won for the 30,000 won for the above 20,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the 130,000 won for the above 30,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 1.

(c) The method of revoking and restoring to original state;

Therefore, the instant sales contract concluded between KimB and the Plaintiff shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant shall be obligated to restore to its original state, to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate to KimB. However, as seen earlier, the instant real estate was already sold to a third party through a voluntary auction, and the establishment registration of a mortgage in the name of a small and medium-sized commercial bank, which existed at the time of the conclusion of the said sales contract, was already cancelled, and in this case, the instant

If the act is revoked and ordered to recover the real estate itself, it would be an order to recover the portion which was not originally held by the general creditors to the extent that it would go against fairness. Therefore, the method of revoking the fraudulent act in this case and restitution to original state would be reasonable to cancel the fraudulent act within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the value of the portion which was not jointly secured from the value of the real estate in this case from the value of the real estate in this case, and to order compensation to the extent of the value (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da28819, 2826 Decided February 25, 2010). However, the scope of cancellation and compensation should not exceed the amount of the plaintiff's preserved claim. Accordingly, the amount of the plaintiff's preserved claim is against the above KRW 00,00, and at least the value of the real estate in this case as of the closing date of argument in this case exceeds 00,000,000 won, and at least 0,000,000 won under the Civil Code, which should be established.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.