Even if the real estate price disposed of by fraudulent act was used as business funds, it constitutes fraudulent act.

It is insufficient to recognize that continuing the business by financing funds has inevitably disposed of real estate in order to finance funds or continue the business by the best way to have the ability to repay debts.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2014 Mada7002 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

IsaA

September 19, 2014

October 17, 2014

1. The sales contract concluded on May 16, 2013 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and the non-partyB shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 00,000,000.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 85,360,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 6, 2013, the Plaintiff-affiliated Kimhae Tax Office issued a notice of the decision on capital gains tax of KRW 000,000,00 on May 31, 2013, 2013 on the right to acquire real estate for DB DD 1490-5 EE eE e e e c,CC, and the due date for payment was determined and notified by Nowon-B as of September 30, 2013 on the fact that the under-reported return of capital gains tax was made, and on September 5, 2013, LaborB issued a notice of the due date for payment of KRW 00,000,000 on September 30, 2013.

B. NoB did not pay the above two national taxes, and on December 2013, 2013, the amount of national taxes in NoB as of NoB is KRW 000,000,000 including additional dues (hereinafter “instant tax claim”).

C. On May 16, 2013, TradeB entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant, who is one’s own wife, on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 20, 2013 by Changwon District Court receipt No. 0000.

D. At the time of the instant sales contract, TradeB’s active properties amounting to KRW 000,00,000 for each of the instant real property, the current base value of which is equivalent to KRW 000,000 for each of the instant real property, and the current base value of KRW 00,000 for the total amount of KRW 15,000,000 for the buildings moving from HG HH 15-1, the market value of which is equivalent to KRW 00,000 for the total amount of KRW 15-1,00,000 for the current market value, whereas the small property was small in the instant tax claim, the total amount of KRW 00,000 for the secured debt of KRW 00,000 for each of the instant real property, and KRW 00,000 for the creditors established in the instant real property, and KRW NA was in excess of its debt.

Facts that there is no dispute for recognition, each entry of Gap's 1 through 5 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

The Plaintiff asserts that he concluded the instant sales contract, which was a fraudulent act between the Defendant and the Defendant in excess of the debt, and that the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 00,000,000 to the Defendant within the limit of KRW 00,000,000, along with the cancellation of the instant sales contract. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the instant sales contract was a normal transaction between the Defendant and the NoBB, and that there was no intention to damage the Defendant to the instant sales contract.

3. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

There is no dispute between the parties as to whether the instant taxation claim is the preserved claim against the instant sales contract.

(b) The establishment of speculative acts and the intention to injure them;

1) According to the above facts of recognition, since TradeB transferred each of the instant real estate to the Defendant while in excess of its obligation, this constitutes a fraudulent act by causing the lack of common creditors of TradeB including the Plaintiff, or taking more serious attention to the shortage of common security, barring any special circumstance, it constitutes a fraudulent act. In light of the self-reliance at the time of TradeB, the intention of trade and industry is recognized, and the Defendant’s bad faith, a beneficiary, is also presumed.

2) On this point, the Defendant asserts that the trade union's use of the purchase price for each of the instant real estate received from the Defendant for business purposes in order to continue its business as a business fund as the situation where it is difficult for the trade union members to continue its business due to the shortage of funds while operating KimG and business, and thus, it does not constitute a fraudulent act. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the trade union's continued business by financing funds is the best method to have the ability to repay debts, and that it was inevitable to dispose of each of the instant real estate in order to lend funds or continue its business, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3) In addition, the Defendant, at the time of the instant sales contract, has concluded a normal sales contract with respect to the property status of Trade UnionB at the time of the instant sales contract, and, in good faith, has paid the purchase price in full by means of collateral loans and account transfer,

(2) The defendant's 00 billion won and 200 billion won and 00 billion won and 200 billion won and 300 million won and 00 won and 200 won and 300 won and 4.0 billion won and 200 won and 00 won and 100 won and 100 won and 100 won and 100 won and 100 won and 200 won and 200 won and 200 won and 103 won and 100 won and 100 won and 200 won and 200 won and 100 won and 200 won and 1,00 won and 200 won and 200 won and 200 won and 1,00 won and 200 won and 1,00 won and 1,00 won of this case and 300 won and 1,00 won of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's bona fide defense is without merit.

(c) Methods and scope of reinstatement;

1) Relevant legal principles

Where several mortgages have been established on real estate which is the object of a fraudulent act and only some mortgages have been cancelled after the fraudulent act, the revocation of the fraudulent act and ordering the restoration of the real estate itself to the debtor's responsible property would result in a violation of the fairness and fairness. Therefore, restitution following the cancellation of the fraudulent act shall be governed by the method of compensation for value. In such a case, the amount of compensation for damages shall be calculated by deducting all the amount of claims secured by the mortgage which was cancelled from the value of the real estate as at the time of the closure of argument at the fact-finding court as at the time of the conclusion of argument (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da33734, Dec. 27, 2001; 2003Da60891, Oct. 14, 2005; 2005Da65197, Jul. 12, 2007).

(ii) the facts of recognition

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 3 and 4, as of November 28, 200, Trade UnionB obtained a loan from the IIII Cooperative (hereinafter referred to as the "II Cooperative"), each of the real estate of this case was completed with the registration of establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the "mortgage No. 1") with the debtor BB, and with the loan from the II Cooperative on June 24, 2002, the amount of the collateral security contract of this case was 00,000,000 won for each of the real estate of this case, 00,000 won for 0,000 won for 0,000,000 won for 0,000 won for 0,000 won for 10,000,000 won for 0,000,000 won for 0,000 won for 20,000,000 won for 20,000,000 won for each of the above collateral security contract of this case.

3) Scope of revocation of fraudulent act and compensation for value

According to the above facts, each of the instant real estate, which is the object of a fraudulent act, can be known that the mortgage of this case was cancelled after the fraudulent act. Thus, at the market price of the instant real estate at KRW 00,000,000 as of the time of the conclusion of the argument of this case, the joint collateral value of KRW 00,000,000, which is the balance after deducting the secured claim amount of each of the instant real estate at KRW 00,000 at the time of the conclusion of the contract of this case from the market price of each of the instant real estate at KRW 00,000,000 (= 00,000,000 - 0,000,000,000) should be cancelled and compensation should be paid within the scope of its cancellation. Ultimately, the cancellation of the contract of this case and compensation should be made within the extent of the smaller amount between the joint collateral value of each of the instant real estate and the Plaintiff’s secured claim amount of KRW 00,000,0000.

Therefore, the instant sales contract shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 00,00,000,00 for the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff. The Defendant, a beneficiary, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day following the day when the judgment became final and conclusive to the day when the Plaintiff is fully repaid.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.