Whether it constitutes a fraudulent act to deposit money into the account of the spouse under excess of liabilities

It is insufficient to recognize that there was a mutual agreement between the defendant and his spouse on the grant of the above money free of charge to the defendant by the fact that he deposited money in the account of his spouse in excess of his obligation. Thus, it is not subject to the revocation of the fraudulent act.

2012 Ghana 210565 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

ThisAAA

June 13, 2013

July 4, 2013

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

In the first place, and between Defendant and KimBBB, the agreement entered in the separate sheet shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 000 per annum from March 29, 2012 to June 7, 2012. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff an amount of KRW 000 and 5% per annum from the day following the day when the judgment was final to the day when full payment was made. In the first place, the trust agreement entered into between Defendant and KimBB with respect to the reorganization of Defendant in the separate sheet Nos. 2 through 6 shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 000. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff an amount of KRW 00 and 5% per annum from the day following the day when the judgment was final to the day when full payment was made.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 19, 2005, KimBB sold the land and its ground buildings, and the Plaintiff conducted a tax investigation from January 31, 2012 to February 19, 2012, and notified KimBB to pay KRW 000,000 to KimB by April 30, 2012.

B. KimBB did not pay the above transfer income tax, and the amount of tax payable by KimBB as of the date of the filing of the instant lawsuit reaches KRW 000,000.

C. Attached List No. 2

On April 5, 2012, KimB deposited KRW 000 ( check number: 0000, and 000 won on April 23, 2012) with the Defendant's Modup No. 3000 and No. 2). The KimB withdrawn KRW 000 on April 23, 2012.

(d) Money listed in the attached list Nos. 3 through 6;

KimB entered into a construction contract for new construction of housing on the Daejeon 000 land owned by AO (hereinafter referred to as "the first real estate of this case") between NAB and NAB, and entered into a construction contract for new construction of housing between NAB and NA, and deposit the construction cost from NAD's account (number 000 and No. B No. 1) with the defendant's NACC (number 000 and No. 1).

(e) Attached Nos. 1 and 7 revolving funds;

1) With respect to the Daejeon Tae-gu Daejeon 000 Daejeon 212.2m2m2 and its ground (hereinafter referred to as the "second real estate in this case"), a sales contract made on April 15, 2012 with the seller's rightO, the buyer, the defendant, and the purchase price were 00 won, and the contract was made on April 15, 2012, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant on the ground of the above sales contract, and the third party was re-registered.

2) The sales proceeds were paid to the seller’s exclusiveO as follows.

(2) The following particulars are omitted:

F. KimBB, while carrying out the new housing construction work on the real estate No. 1 of this case, is due to the Dad 2012.

5. From July 2, 201 to June 7, 2012, the Defendant received 000 won (attached Form Nos. 3 to 7) from the said accounts in the name of the Defendant (number: 000, and No. 1). As a result, the Defendant’s payment for the construction work for the subcontractor, the Defendant’s accounts for the NAFF, and the Defendant’s accounts for the NAFF (No. 000), and the Defendant’s accounts for the NAF (number: 00). The amount of money in excess of the construction cost deposited from NAD was paid.

사. 한편， 김BBBB은 2012. 4. 5. 그 소유의 대전 0000 대 145㎡， 같은 동 0000 도로 13㎡를 처분하여 현재 적극재산으로 충남 금산군 부리면 0000 답 1319㎡(시가 000원 상당)를 소유하고 있을 뿐이고， 다른 재산은 없다.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute are described in Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and evidence 16 (including each number), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The assertion

The plaintiff, and KimBB made a total of KRW 000 from March 29, 2012 to June 7, 2012, as shown in the attached list, to the defendant's account in excess of the debt, and he asserts that the KimB made a donation of money to the defendant, and even if not, it constitutes a fraudulent act or a gift, it constitutes a fraudulent act under the name of the deposit owner as a trust contract.

B. Determination

1) The money listed in [Attachment 2-6] Nos. 2 through 6

First, according to the plaintiff's argument that there was a donation contract between KimB and the defendant, and the above fact that KimB transferred money to the above account under the name of the defendant, and that KimB deposited KRW 122,900,000 as stated in the separate list 2 through 6, but it is insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement between KimBB and the defendant about granting money to the defendant as a final belonging to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise. Rather, as the above facts and arguments are recognized, KimBB and the defendant are family members, and that the above money transferred to the defendant KimB was transferred to the above account under the name of the defendant KimB, and that the above money transferred to KimB was paid after the new construction of the house, and that all of the money was used by the defendant KimB, and that there was no reason to believe that the money transferred to the defendant KimB was transferred to the above account under the name of the defendant KimB, and that there was no reason to believe that the money transferred to the defendant KimB was used for the defendant KimB's trust account.

2) The money listed in [Attachment 1.7]

The facts that the sales contract and ownership transfer registration for the second real estate of this case were made under the name of the defendant are as above. However, it is insufficient to find that KimBB had agreed to grant the money listed in the separate list 1 and 7 used as the sales price for the second real estate of this case to the defendant ultimately reverted to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Rather, according to the above facts acknowledged, KimB concluded a sales contract for the second real estate of this case with the name of "CCC Construction," and the testimony and arguments of Lee OOO, KimB had no intention to purchase and sell the land to the defendant and had no reason to recognize that the sale contract was made under the name of the defendant 20, and that KimB had no intention to purchase the real estate of this case and had no reason to recognize that the sale contract was made under the name of the defendant 20, and that there was no intention to purchase the real estate of this case between the defendant 1B and the defendant 20, which had not been made under the name of the defendant 3B.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are dismissed for all reasons.