Seoul Central District Court-2016-Ban-512723 ( August 24, 2017)

transaction of real property and shares, the sole property of which is in excess of liabilities, constitutes an act detrimental to the creditors.

In full view of the purport of each of the evidence and arguments, the fact that the instant shares were calculated as xx members per share and paid after filing a securities transaction tax return, and the market price of the instant shares, which are non-listed stocks, can be acknowledged that the value per share has been value.

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

Seoul Central District Court 2017Na64462 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AA

May 11, 2018

July 13, 2018

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

With respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the defendant and BB shall cancel the trade reservation concluded on June 3, 2015 and the sales contract concluded on July 9, 2015, respectively, and the defendant will implement the procedure for each cancellation of the transfer of ownership registration completed on June 18, 2015 by the above court as the provisional registration for the right to claim the transfer of ownership completed on June 18, 2015 and the registration for the right to claim the transfer of ownership completed on July 10, 2015.

With respect to the shares listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the shares of this case"), the sales contract concluded on December 23, 2015 between the defendant and the above BB shall be revoked, and the defendant shall implement the procedure for the renewal of the name of shares on the ground of "reparing due to the cancellation of fraudulent act" to the above BB.

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court are as follows, except for the addition of the following ‘2. Additional Judgment' as to the argument that the defendant added in the trial at the trial, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment at the court of first instance. Therefore, it is accepted by the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that the shares of this case do not have real value and are not subject to revocation of fraudulent act.

B. Determination

(1) It is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the entries of Dop, Eul evidence No. 1-2 and Eul evidence No. 1-2 alone do not have real value of the shares of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(2) Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 7 and 12 and the arguments, BB may recognize the fact that the Defendant calculated and sold the instant shares as xxxxxxxxxx, and that the market price of the instant shares, which are non-listed shares, was calculated on January 13, 2016, and that the per share value per share was xxx source as a result of calculating the market price of the instant shares. In light of such fact, the instant shares are deemed to have actual value, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.