Transfer to another person may not be considered as a fraudulent act if it is transferred to another person.

Since the Nonparty’s transfer of the instant shares, which are the sole property of Defendant 1, deepens the debt excess, the Nonparty’s disposal act against Defendant 1 ought to be revoked as a fraudulent act, but the Nonparty did an act of disposal of property to Defendant 2, the spouse of the Nonparty, for the purpose of performing the duty of support, etc. under the Civil Act, and thus

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act Revocation of Fraudulent Act

2013 Gohap 4305 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AAA Foreign1

December 11, 2013

January 15, 2014

1. A. A. Revocation of a transfer agreement concluded on September 13, 2010 with respect to the shares listed in the separate sheet between Defendant AA and CCC;

B. Defendant AA shall implement transfer procedures with respect to the shares listed in the separate sheet to CCC.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant BB is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant AA is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant BB is assessed against the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

Order 1 and 208. 8. 4, 2008; Oct. 8, 2008; Oct. 14, 2008; Nov. 3, 2008; and May 27, 2009, each donation contract between Defendant BB and CCC is revoked within the scope of ○○○○○○○○.

C. Defendant BB shall pay to the Plaintiff ○○○○○○ and its interest at a rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day when the instant judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

(a) Imposition of capital gains tax;

CCC transferred land and ground on June 24, 2008 to ○○○ Development Corporation, ○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, and three other lots of land on July 22, 2008. As to this, the head of ○○○○○○○, ○○, on August 10, 2009 (C above on June 24, 2008, the date on which the liability to pay taxes on the transfer of ○○○, ○○, and the date on which the liability to pay taxes on the transfer of ○○, as of July 22, 2008, was established, decided and notified to ○○, ○○, and ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○, hereinafter referred to as “instant tax claim”). However, the head of ○, including the amount in arrears, did not pay the penalty by the CCC up to the closing date of argument.

B. Disposition by CCC

1) On July 14, 2008, Defendant BB paid the remainder of the lease deposit to DD through EE, a broker, to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on October 14, 2008. On August 4, 2008, CCC paid the remainder of the lease deposit to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on November 14, 2008, respectively, by issuing the cash check to ○○○○○○○○○○ on May 27, 2009.

2) On September 13, 2010, CCC transferred shares listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant shares”) to Defendant AA.

C. Property status of the CCC

CCC received compensation as above, but did not fully use compensation in arranging obligations, etc., and at the time of each disposal act in the above Section B, it was in excess of liability due to such disposal act.

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8 (which has a serial number)

(hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to Defendant AA’s claim

The Plaintiff asserted that the CCC’s disposal of the instant shares should be revoked as a fraudulent act, as CCC transferred the instant shares, which are the only property of Defendant AA, to the contrary, and that the said disposal of the CCC should be revoked, Defendant AA led to confession at the second date for pleading.

Therefore, the transfer contract between Defendant AA and CCC on September 13, 2010 entered into with respect to the instant shares should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and Defendant AA is obligated to implement the transfer procedure for the instant shares to the CCC due to restitution thereafter.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant BB

A. Whether a fraudulent act was committed

1) The plaintiff's assertion

CCC paid the remainder of lease deposit to DD on behalf of Defendant BB, the wife, and paid 00,000 won to Defendant BB, constitutes a fraudulent act as a gift detrimental to CCC’s creditors.

2) Defendant BB’s assertion

CCC’s monetary payment is not a donation since it was paid to the wife and children as support fees or living expenses.

3) Determination

The marital support duty (Article 826(1) of the Civil Act), protection of persons with parental authority, cultural rights and duties (Article 913 of the Civil Act), and support duty among lineal blood relatives (Article 974 of the Civil Act), result in the debtor's failure to pay debts or reduction of joint security against general creditors as a result of the debtor's failure to pay debts or in excess of debts, barring special circumstances to deem that the debtor's act of disposal of property was performed in the course of the fulfillment of support duty, etc., it is too excessive to the extent that it would be against the purpose of implementing the support duty, etc., and that there is no reason to believe that

It would not be said that it would not be.

In addition, the degree and method of support is determined by taking into account the standard of living of the recipient of support, the ability of the person under duty to support, and all other circumstances, unless there is an agreement between the parties. This includes expenses incurred in receiving education based on the age, talent, status, status, etc. of the recipient of support (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu46, Jun. 10, 1986).

(5) Comprehensively taking account of the following facts: “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 2, supra. 6, on July 15, 201.

Examining these facts in light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that CCC has paid a lease deposit and provided the wife and children with living expenses, educational expenses, etc. in order to prepare a house in which the wife and children reside as a result of the performance of the above obligation in spite of the obligation to care and educate their children pursuant to Article 913 of the Civil Act, even though CCC has a duty to care and educate their children pursuant to Article 826 of the Civil Act, it is reasonable to see that CCC unilaterally provided a lease deposit in order to prepare a house in which the wife and children reside as a result of the performance of such obligation, and it is too excessive to the extent that it is against the intent of the obligation to support, or there is no special circumstance to recognize that the performance of the obligation to support is an act of disposal of property that actually performed the obligation to support. Therefore, CCC's above property disposition does not constitute an act of revocation

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. Whether Defendant BB’s good faith

Even if the above disposal act of the familyCC was actually performed by the performance of the duty to support and becomes subject to creditor's right of revocation, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the facts and the purport of the statement and arguments stated in Section B 12, 14, and 15 above, namely, ① Defendant BB appears to have been unaware of the obligation relationship of the CCC since around 2005, ② Defendant BB could have been well aware of the obligation relationship with the CCC. ② Defendant BB could have been aware of the occurrence of the instant tax claim in the process of CCC over the real estate over ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the debt owed to the ○○○○○○○○ Mutual Savings Bank. However, in light of the above, it is difficult to view that CCC as the beneficiary of the Plaintiff's claim against the ○○○○○○○ as well as the beneficiary of the Plaintiff's debt owed to the ○○○○○○○, immediately after paying off the debt to the ○○○○○ Savings Bank.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant AA is justified, and the claim against the defendant BB is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.