Transfer to a borrowed account shall not be deemed a gift constituting a fraudulent act.

In order to avoid tracking a taxation authority, etc., the mere fact that a person with a certain personal relationship consented or understood to remit money to his/her own deposit account, knowing that he/she transfers money in his/her possession to his/her own deposit account, cannot be deemed as a donation.

2012 Gohap 103098 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

IsaA

July 12, 2013

August 16, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The contract on the donation between the defendant and the LeeB on October 15, 2010 and the contract on the donation of the OOOO on November 22, 2010 shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum with respect to the OOO and the plaintiff from the final judgment of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff has a total of OOB tax claims equivalent to the total amount of OOB as indicated below.

Table 2 see Court Decision 2

B. On October 11, 2010, thisB sold OO-48, 434-32, and 434-35 land in the name of OOO-o-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O- of the above purchase price to the Bank account in the name of the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "the Account in this case"), and on October 15, 2010, this B deposited OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O- of the above purchase price into the Account in this case on November 22, 2010, and there is no dispute over the fact that the OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O- of the above purchase price was deposited into the Account in this case."

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

“The Plaintiff has a total taxation claim against B, and some of the above taxation claims have been established after the date of fraudulent act between the Defendant and B, or after the date of the establishment of the pertinent taxation claim, and there is possibility of establishment of the claim, and the claim has been established due to the real reality of this probability, the above taxation claims can be all preserved claims. It constitutes a gift contract against B on October 15, 2010, and an account under the Defendant’s name was deposited by OOB on November 22, 2010, respectively, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditors including the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant and B should have the obligation to restore the original status to the original status as the gift contract between the Defendant and B on October 15, 2010, and the gift contract between the Plaintiff and B on November 22, 2010 (hereinafter “OO and delay damages”).

1) Relevant legal principles

“In order for a debtor to have concluded a donation contract with a false agreement on money remitted to another person’s deposit account, first of all, it should be interpreted that the debtor and the account holder agree with the intent to grant the remittance amount to the account holder ultimately reverted to another person. The burden of proof as to such remittance lies on the creditor who asserts that such remittance act is a fraudulent act subject to the obligee’s right of revocation. In the event of a transfer to another person’s deposit account, the remittance may be based on various legal causes, and the person in a certain personal relationship consented or understood to transfer the money to one’s own deposit account with the knowledge of the fact that the person transfers the money to his/her own deposit account for such purpose, or permits the actual control of his/her own deposit account for such purpose, barring any other special circumstance, it cannot be readily concluded that the remitter and the account holder agree with the intent to grant the remittance amount gratuitously to the account holder. In addition, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be readily concluded that the account holder and the account holder were established under the real name verification procedure, even if the account holder were established with 2016.

“A) In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that DoD, the husband of B, is using the instant account under the consent or understanding of the Defendant for the purpose of managing the funds of EE Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EE Construction”), which can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements in subparagraphs 5, 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), 4 through 7, and DoD, the husband of DoB, is using the instant account under the consent or understanding of the Defendant. In addition, there seems to be no other special circumstance to deem that there was a mutual agreement between B and the Defendant as to granting the OEO or equivalent pecuniary profit deposited in the instant account, as it ultimately belongs to the Defendant.” (i) EE Construction was established on October 12, 2010, and the Defendant was registered as the representative director, but the Defendant is currently operating DoD Construction, the husband of DoB, the husband of Do.

② On October 14, 2010, after receiving delegation from the Defendant, OF, an employee of EE Construction, filed an application for the opening of the instant account in the name of “EE Construction Corporation (AAA)” with the Industrial Bank of Korea on October 14, 2010. The nominal owner stated that the instant account is “AE Construction Corporation.” The instant account was planned to be converted to the name of EE Construction, a corporation upon the submission of the registration certificate of EE Construction’s business to the Industrial Bank of Korea, but still remains in the Defendant’s personal account due to the failure to submit the registration certificate,” and ③ on October 15, 2010, the balance of the instant account was deposited in the instant account in the name of OF, AD, etc., including the deposit received several times in the name of OOOF, but on the same day, OOOF appears to have been purchased from O25 OE Construction Co., Ltd. through the public auction.

④ On November 22, 2010, the balance of the instant account was deposited several times in the name of OF, etc. before and after the deposit by OOOOO in the instant account, and the balance of the instant account was deposited by OOOF, etc. on the same day. On December 16, 2010, OOOO was withdrawn from the instant account after several times of deposit and withdrawal, and the balance of the instant account was deposited by OOOOO as a member of the instant account, and thereafter was not used at all thereafter.

B) Therefore, since each gift contract of this case alleged by the plaintiff as a fraudulent act cannot be deemed to exist, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without examining the remaining points.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.