It is not possible to see that the debtor has damaged the creditor's claim, and therefore it is a fraudulent act.

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the debtor is unable to fully satisfy the creditor's claims due to the shortage of joint security at the time of the instant donation contract or the shortage of one story, and thus, it cannot be recognized as the plaintiff's master.

2013 Ghana 1483 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

KimA

October 15, 2013

November 5, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant and KimB revoked the donation contract concluded on July 5, 2010 with respect to one-half portion of the 1/2 portion of the OOO-gun OO-gun OB OO-gun 109,884 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”). The Defendant will implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on July 5, 2010 with respect to one-half portion of the instant land by the Changwon District Court Joint Registry of the Changwon District Court as of July 5, 2010.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Around January 201, the director of the tax office affiliated with the Plaintiff notified KimB of the determination of the capital gains tax OOOOOB on March 26, 2008, as well as 14 lots of land outside the OOO-gun OOB 139 OOB OB.

B. In addition, around July 13, 2012, the head of Msan Tax Office notified the KimB of the OO-gun O-O48 O-O-O, O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-transfer of two parcels on December 1, 209.

C. On the other hand, on July 5, 2010, KimB donated 1/2 shares of the land of this case to the defendant, who is a grandparent (hereinafter referred to as "the donation of this case") and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 9 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the creditor of the plaintiff et al., and the debtor KimB, KimB, was aware that the said donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act. Since the defendant's bad faith, which is the beneficiary, is presumed, the instant donation contract should be revoked, and the defendant should restore the property donated to KimB.

3. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee's right of revocation has arisen prior to the act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that serve as the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the claim should be established in the near future, and where a claim has been established as a result of its realization in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da64038, Nov. 26, 2002). This legal principle applies to a taxation claim, as it applies to a taxation claim, even if there was no specific taxation disposition at the time of the fraudulent act, and if a taxation claim has been established in detail through a series of procedures, such as a practical taxation disposition, etc., even if there was a high probability that a claim may be established in the near future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67536, Jun. 29, 2007).

According to the above facts, KimB, prior to the conclusion of the gift contract of this case, caused an abstract duty of payment which serves as the basis for the establishment of a tax claim by transferring its own real estate on March 26, 2008 and December 1, 2009, and there was a high probability on the fact that the claim is created in the future. After that, the Plaintiff, around January 1, 201 and July 13, 201, notified KimB of the decision of capital gains tax, and thus, each tax claim of this case (hereinafter referred to as "each tax claim of this case") becomes specific and definite, as each of the tax claims of this case becomes subject to the obligee's right of revocation.

B. Whether the establishment of fraudulent act and the intention of deception exists

(1) First, I will examine whether KimB was in excess of the obligation at the time of the conclusion of the instant donation contract.

㈎ 적극재산

① Shares 1/2 of the instant land: OOwon (based on the transaction value on January 14, 2010, No. 3)

(2) OO also OO-gun O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-7 land: O-O-O-O (based on the transaction price on July 8, 201, and evidence No. 4-6)

(3) OO also owns 23-1 land, OO also OO-gun 23-1 land, O-gun 517-1 land: OO-O (based on the transaction price on August 9, 201, and evidence No. 4-7, 8)

(4) Two parcels, other than the land on which an OO-gun 333 O-type 333 O-type O-type OOO-type - OOO-type - OO-type 1 (the appraised value of an O-type O-type 1 as a collateral creditor - A-type 4-3 through 5, and 9)

㈏ 소극재산

① Each tax liability of this case: A total amount of OO0 won + OOO0)

Ultimately, the sum of active property is KRW 0,000 + KRW 20,000 + KRW O0 + KRW O00 + KRW OO0). Since the sum of passive property is KRW O0,000, it is difficult to view that it was in excess of the obligation at the time of the conclusion of the instant gift contract. However, inasmuch as the instant gift contract loses ownership of 1/2 of the instant land under the instant gift contract, and the sum of active property has decreased to OO0, it is reasonable to deem that the instant gift contract was in excess of the obligation, and therefore, there is room to deem that the instant gift contract constitutes a fraudulent act.

D. Meanwhile, in light of the above facts, it is difficult to find that the obligor, who is a subjective requirement of obligee’s right of revocation, was unaware of the obligor’s bad faith, i.e., the decrease in the assets by the obligor’s act of disposal of the assets, and thus, it is difficult to recognize that the obligor’s joint security was unable to fully satisfy the obligee’s claims due to the shortage of common security (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da2916, Nov. 12, 199). 6, OB was not aware of the fact that each of the above items of evidence No. 2, No. 4-2, No. 9, and No. 1 through No. 5, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 2, No. 3,000 were not aware of the obligor’s shortage of assets at the time of this case’s donation, and it is difficult forOB to find out the amount of each of the above items of debt guaranteed by each of the above items of debt guaranteed by the obligee.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion, which is premised on the debtor KimB's intention of death, is without merit without further review.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.