logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.05.16 2016가단534947
사해행위취소
Text

1. Of the land listed in the separate sheet, 1/8 shares are concluded on November 27, 2014 between the Defendants and D.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D does not pay a total of KRW 437,137,810, including capital gains tax and additional dues (the first due date for payment is October 31, 2009), and the Plaintiff has a claim equivalent to the above unpaid tax amount against D.

B. E, the father of D, owned one half of the shares of each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) (hereinafter “instant shares”), and died.

C. The heir of E and the Defendants were their children, and D and the Defendants agreed on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content that the Defendants inherited the instant shares owned by E on November 27, 2014, respectively. D and the Defendants agreed on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant contract”).

At the time of the instant contract, D is insolvent in which there is no active property until now.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The agreement on the division of inherited property to determine the cause of a claim is to confirm the reversion of inherited property by having all or part of the inherited property provisionally owned by each inheritor as the sole ownership by each inheritor or as a new co-ownership relationship with respect to the inherited property, and thus, it is a legal act aimed at property rights in its nature. Therefore, a fraudulent act may be exercised against the creditor, barring any special circumstance. Meanwhile, barring any special circumstance, the debtor's act of selling real property only with respect to one's own property and changing it into money easily for consumption or transferring it to another person without compensation is a fraudulent act against the creditor. Thus, even if the debtor in excess of his/her obligation has reduced joint security against the creditor by giving up his/her right to the inherited property

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007).

arrow