Busan District Court 2014 Ghana 233554

Transfer of an obligor in excess of his/her obligation as a substitute payment is a fraudulent act.

Unlike the case of performance, the act of a debtor in excess of his/her obligation as a substitute payment may be, in principle, a fraudulent act. However, the establishment of a fraudulent act may be denied in cases where it cannot be viewed as an act detrimental to the general creditor.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 406 of the Civil Act

Busan District Court 2015Na4220

Korea

leAA

Busan District Court 2014 Ghana 233554

January 15, 2016

February 3, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The purchase and sale contract between the Defendant and BB Development regarding each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet (1) through (3) (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant real estates”) shall be revoked. The Defendant shall complete each of the sale and sale contracts with respect to the real estates listed in the separate sheet (1) as indicated in the separate sheet (2). The Defendant shall complete each of the sale and sale registration of ownership with respect to the real estates listed in the separate sheet (1) with the CC District Court’s DD branch on November 27, 2013, 2012X 31x 316, 200, 200, 2000, 200, 2000, 2000, 2000, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

subsection (1)

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's reasoning for this case is as follows. The defendant's conclusion of the sales contract for each of the real estate of this case between BB development company and BB development company is insufficient to recognize that it was bona fide in fraudulent act. The defendant's conclusion of the sales contract for each of the real estate of this case is not sufficient. The defendant's statement of No. 20 and No. 21 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deleted. The defendant's statement of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the following to No. 5 and No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance, since it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the contract was concluded between BB development company and the defendant's bona fide.

[Supplementary Parts]

The Defendant asserted that the act of transferring the active property in excess of the obligation to some of the creditors as payment in kind can be a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, in principle, unlike the case where the obligor pays the obligation to a certain creditor to some of the creditors, and the establishment of a fraudulent act may be denied if it is not detrimental to the general creditor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da2718, Sept. 30, 2010).

According to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant constitutes a payment in lieu of each of the instant real estate or its shares in respect of the claim against BB development, and there is no circumstance to deem that the payment in lieu of the Defendant in lieu of the payment in lieu of the Defendant to the Defendant for the purpose of promoting the rehabilitation in BB development, such as otherwise having the right to preferential payment to the Defendant, or there was a need to pay in lieu of the Defendant for the purpose of promoting the rehabilitation in BB development, and ultimately, it is reasonable to deem that BB development

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted in its entirety on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.