as a result of the reduction of the common creditors' joint security due to the act of donation constitutes a fraudulent act.

The fact that the resident registration certificate is attached to the account transaction application and the documents prepared while opening an account are not put up, but the name of the defendants is written as a pen, and the seal is affixed to this account, and it is recognized that this account constitutes the property donated to the defendants, and it results in the reduction of the common creditors' joint security due to the act of donation.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2011 Gohap 17555 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Gangnam 2 et al.

March 6, 2012

March 27, 2012

1. The contract of gift specified in the attached Table 1 concluded between the defendant Gangnam-A and the strongB shall be revoked within the scope of ○○○○○.

2. Defendant Gangnam-A shall pay to the Plaintiff ○○○○ and its amount at the rate of 5% per annum from the day immediately following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. The gift agreement entered in the separate sheet 2 signed between Defendant Gangnam and Gangwon shall be revoked within the scope of 00 won.

4. Defendant Gangnam-CC shall pay to the Plaintiff ○○○○○ and its amount at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

5. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Formation of a taxation claim

(1) On March 26, 2009, Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 000-0 large 398.2 square meters and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) are transferred to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the date of the contract, and the intermediate payment ○○○○○○○○○○ on April 27, 2009 agreed to receive each payment on July 6, 2009, but the tax authority did not pay capital gains tax after making a preliminary return on capital gains tax return, and the head of the tax office of Jeju affiliated with the Plaintiff did not pay capital gains tax on November 11, 2009, to ○○○○○○○○○○ on the date of the contract, but did not pay capital gains tax by November 30, 2011.

3) In addition, the head of the Jeju Tax Office notified the Gangwon District Tax Office to pay the global income tax on the rental income in 2009 on the instant real estate by December 31, 2009. On January 5, 2011, the Director of the Jeju Tax Office notified the 2009 global income tax on the global income tax on the global income tax in 2009, which was not reported on January 31, 201, to pay by January 31, 2011. The Gangwon District Tax Office did not pay this and thus, the Gangwon District Tax Office currently did not pay the national tax (including additional dues) of the ○○○○ (hereinafter “instant tax claim”).

B. Money transaction between the riverB and the Defendants

1) The defendant Gangnam-A is the south of the strongB, and the defendant Gangnam-A is the south of the strongB.

2) on July 6, 2009, DB received the remainder of ○○○○ (○○○) from Oteck Co., Ltd. for the instant real estate transaction.

3) On July 6, 2009, KangB deposited ○○○○○ (○○○) from the balance to the account of AA Bank in the name of Defendant Gangseo-A on deposit.

4) The strongB deposited the remainder to the AAB bank account in the name of Defendant Gangseo-CC on July 6, 2009.

5) The strongB deposited the remainder to the AAF bank account in the name of the Defendant GangnamCC on July 7, 2009.

6) The strongB paid ○○○○○ Won from the balance to UD on July 7, 2009.

7) Defendant Gangnam-A entered into a car sales contract with △△ Investment Business Co., Ltd., and on July 9, 2009, Gangwon-do paid Defendant Gangnam-gu KRW ○○○○ (○○○) out of the purchase price of Defendant Gangnam-gu’s car.

(c) Other details of expenditure of the riverB’s other money.

1) With respect to the instant real estate, two of the two of the collateral security holders was established on the basis of AA bank. However, on July 6, 2009, GangnamB repaid the remainder amount of KRW 1 billion out of the remainder, and ○○○○○○○○ was remitted out of the remainder amount to EA bank, and the remainder amount of KRW ○○○○ was exchanged and consumed in foreign currency.

2) As to the instant real estate, the right to lease on a deposit basis was established in the name of ▽△△ Educational Co., Ltd., but the strongB paid ○○○○○ on July 6, 2009 the said right to lease on a deposit basis in the remainder.

3) On July 6, 2009, KangB deposited ○○○○○ in its account from the above balance, and deposited KRW 11,550,000 out of that amount in foreign currency, and consumed it.

4) The strongB paid ○○○ to the KimF on July 6, 2009 from the balance.

(v)GB paid GG on July 7, 2009 ○○○○, Kim H, ○○○○, and SongE, respectively, in the balance.

6) On July 8, 2009, Gangnam paid ○○○○, ○○○, to Song J, and ○○○○, to the United StatesJ, respectively, in the balance.

7) On July 9, 2009, GangnamB paid △○○○○○○ in the balance to △△ hotel.

8) On July 23, 2009, Gangnam paid ○○○○○○, and ○○○○○, a stock company, in the balance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1 through 5, 7 through 20, Eul's 1, 7 and 12 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Formation of preserved claims;

A. Legal nature of the act of payment, which is the amount of Gangwon

1) Parties’ assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that, as stated in the table 1 and 2 of the attached Table 1 and 2, the payment of ○○○○○ and the Defendant Gangnam-gu to the Defendant was concluded between the Defendants and the Plaintiff on the date of the above payment, and that this ought to be revoked by fraudulent act as it was concluded with the intent to impair other creditors, including the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that the riverB as the father of the Defendants, the Plaintiff’s father, and the Defendant managed the assets by opening a bank account in the name of the Defendants. Since the amount deposited in the Defendants’ account is owned by the riverB, the Defendants did not receive a donation from the riverB, and the ○○○○○○○ that was paid to the U.S.D is not a donation from the riverB, but a monetary obligation against the U.D. was paid by the Defendants to the Defendants.

2) Determination

A) Money deposited in the account in the name of the Defendants

"The Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality was repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (Act No. 5493, Dec. 31, 1997; hereinafter referred to as "emergency order"). In the event that the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (hereinafter referred to as "the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions") enters into a deposit agreement through a real name verification procedure and its facts are clearly stated in the deposit agreement, it would be reasonable to interpret that the deposit title holder or the actor and the intent of the financial institution acting for him/her would be the party to the deposit contract, and to clarify the legal relationship as to the party to the deposit contract. Such legal principles on the interpretation of the said party should also be applied to all cases where the deposit title holder or the third party, such as the fund contributor, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "the deposit title holder, etc.") entered in the name of the Defendants in the deposit account under the name of 30 deposit account in the name of the Defendants, which is not the deposit title holder of the deposit account.

B) Money paid to UD.

As seen above, the KangB paid ○○○○ on July 7, 2009. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the Defendants concluded a sales contract with the UDR on July 6, 2009 to purchase the land and the buildings on the land. The above circumstances are as follows, which are found in full view of the overall purport of the arguments, i.e., ① the GangwonB made a sales contract with the UDR on the real estate located in Ansan, and ② the Defendants did not submit objective data to acknowledge the payment of the purchase price to the UDR, but ③ the Defendants did not have received any remainder of the purchase price to the UDR on the date when the Defendants paid the purchase price to the UDR. 1, 2009. However, the Defendants did not submit any objective data to acknowledge the payment of the purchase price to the Defendants on the date when the donations were made.

C) Money paid to △△ Investment Trust Co.

As seen above, it is reasonable to view the Gangwon-do’s act of donation to Defendant Gangwon-do’s act of donation to Defendant Gangwon-do, since Defendant Kang paid KRW 000,00,00,00, to be paid to △△○, on behalf of Defendant Kang-A.

B. Singleness of each gift act against the Defendants of the GangwonB (hereinafter “each gift act of this case”)

1) In order to become a fraudulent act, the debtor's act of disposing of property shall cause a decrease in the debtor's whole property and in short of the joint security of claims due to such act. In other words, the debtor's passive property should be more than active property. In case where the debtor continuously disposes of several properties, barring any special circumstance that the act should be viewed as one act, a series of acts shall not be determined collectively, but shall be determined based on whether each act causes insolvency. However, if the debtor continuously disposes of several properties, but all other parties are in special relationship with the debtor, the opportunity to dispose of the properties is equal, and if the interval between time is close, it shall be determined based on the debtor's multiple disposal acts as one act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23857, Sept. 24, 2002).

2) The Defendants, who were paid the money from JB, are the children of JB, and the Defendants, who were paid the money from JB, paid the money to Defendant JA three times between D and D, and the payment of the money to Defendant JCC was made three times between D and D. The Defendants’ payment of the money to Defendant JCC was made three times between D and D, and the remainder of the real estate purchase price of this case owned by JB. The Defendants’ payment of the money to the Defendants was a part of the remainder of the real estate purchase price of this case owned by JB, and the fact that JB was reduced rapidly due to repayment within four days from the date on which the remainder of the real estate purchase price of this case was received. In light of the other party to the payment and time close, it is reasonable to deem that each of the donation of this case was a single act, and therefore, it should be determined under such premise as to whether a fraudulent act was established.

(c) Claims for preservation;

1) In principle, a claim that can be protected by the obligee's right of revocation needs to be protected prior to the occurrence of an act that could be viewed as a fraudulent act, but there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that would be the basis of the establishment of a claim, and that the claim would be established in the near future. In fact, where a claim has been created as a result of realizing the possibility in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim. This legal principle applies to a tax claim. As such, even in cases where a tax claim was not imposed by the specific decision of correction, etc. at the time of the fraudulent act, even if there was a basic legal relationship as to the occurrence of a tax claim, and where a tax claim was specifically established through a series of procedures, such as the actual decision of correction, etc., under the circumstances where it is highly probable that a claim may be established in the near future (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001).

2) As seen above, during the period from July 6, 2009 to July 9, 2009, the riverB did not notify the Plaintiff of the global income tax and the payment of transfer income tax on the riverB. However, the transfer of the instant real estate, which is the cause of the transfer income tax, was made on March 26, 2009, prior to the payment of the transfer income tax. The global income tax imposed on the riverB was based on the lease income in 2009, and there was a basic legal relationship as to the occurrence of the taxation claim. The transfer income tax was naturally planned to impose the transfer income tax on the transferor. According to Article 21(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, since the income tax is established when each taxable period expires, it is highly probable that the above taxation claim should be established on the basis of the legal relationship in the near future, and it is highly probable that the claim for revocation of taxation claim in this case was established since it has not been actually established.

In addition, the claim amount of the preserved claim includes interest or delay damages incurred from the time of the conclusion of arguments in fact-finding proceedings, and this legal principle also applies to the additional national tax and increased additional tax. Accordingly, in the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the fraudulent act in this case, the total amount of 511,370,260 won is recognized as the preserved claim.

3. The establishment of fraudulent act;

A. Whether the act of gift of this case constitutes a fraudulent act

1) Relevant legal principles

In order to become a fraudulent act, the debtor's act of disposing of his/her assets shall cause a decrease in the debtor's whole property and thus, the joint security of claims is not sufficient. In other words, the debtor's passive property shall be more than the debtor's active property (Supreme Court Decision 2001Da32533 Decided October 12, 2001).

(ii) active property of the Gangwon;

As seen above, KangB sold the instant real estate and owned the remainder of KRW ○○○○ on July 6, 2009. However, until July 9, 2009, when each of the instant donations took place, it spent the remainder of the purchase price of the instant real estate as the sales price of the instant real estate by consuming the said KRW ○○○○○ upon repayment, etc.

3) The strongB's passive property

As seen above, it was anticipated that Gangwon will be imposed by the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in the instant taxation claim amount, and thus, the strongB’s passive property around July 9, 2009 when each of the instant gift was committed was the ○○○○○○.

(iv)the occurrence of an excessive obligation;

The strongB's active property was reduced to ○○○○ by each gift act of this case, and the small property was more active property than active property. Each gift act of this case constitutes a fraudulent act.

(b) Presumption of an intention or bad faith;

As seen above, even though the remainder of the real estate purchase price of this case was most assets at the time of each act of donation of this case, most of the remainder was consumed by repayment, etc. within a short time, and as a result, it was found that the strongB was aware that each act of donation of this case would result in the reduction of common creditors' joint security.

In addition, as long as the intention of forceB, which is the debtor, has been recognized, the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary, and there is no evidence to reverse the defendant's bad faith presumption.

4. Cancellation and (a) Methods of reinstatement.

Therefore, both a donation contract in the attached Table 1 and a donation contract in the attached Table 2 concluded between KangB and defendant Gangnam-gu and the defendant Gangnam-gu shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendants shall be obligated to return the money donated from Gangwon-do to its original original state. According to each of the evidence Nos. 14 and 15, it is recognized that the amount deposited into the account in the name of the defendants was not fully withdrawn, and the remaining amount is not paid to the U.S. under the real estate sales contract in the name of the defendants, or that the remaining amount is not paid to the U.S. in the real estate sales contract in Ansan-si, or paid to the △△△△ Investment Co., Ltd. in the automobile sales contract. Thus, since it was impossible to return the original amount donated from the Gangwon-do, the plaintiff may claim restitution from the defendants as a compensation for the value.

(b) Scope of reinstatement;

Compensation for the value following the revocation of fraudulent act shall be limited to the smaller amount between the amount of the preserved claim by the revocation creditor and the value of the subject matter to be restored, and the value of the preserved claim and the subject matter to be restored shall include the interest or delay damages accrued until the date of closing argument at the fact-finding court (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Na42711, Oct. 25, 2002)

On the other hand, as of the date of the closing of argument in this case, the amount of the pertinent taxation claim against the Plaintiff KangB, which is the amount of the preserved claim in this case, is KRW 511,370,260, and the value of each gift in this case is KRW 00,000, so compensation for the value following the cancellation of each gift contract between GangwonB and the Defendants should be paid within the limit of KRW 00

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the agreement on donation in the separate sheet No. 1 entered in the separate sheet No. 1 entered into between Defendant Gangnam-A and KangB is revoked within the scope of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and Defendant Gangnam-CC is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the damages for delay at a rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following the day when the judgment became final and conclusive to the day when the payment is fully made. As the Plaintiff seeks, the amount of donation contract entered in the separate sheet No. 2 entered in the separate sheet No. 2 entered into between Defendant Gangnam-A and Gangwon-B between the Plaintiff and the day after the day when the judgment became final and conclusive to the day when the payment is fully made. As seen above, the amount of donation made to Defendant Gangnam-A is revoked within the scope of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay at a rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following the date

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.