The termination of the title trust agreement must be revoked as a fraudulent act.

The title trust agreement that was the only property share that was transferred to the spouse under the condition of bearing tax liability constitutes a fraudulent act that reduces the creditor's joint security and is presumed to have been bad faith by the beneficiary, so it should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

2012 Ghana 31166 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

XX

December 6, 2012

January 10, 2013

1. On April 20, 201, as to 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and ParkA

The contract for termination of trust is cancelled.

2. The Defendant shall comply with the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 22148, which was received on April 21, 2011, with respect to the portion of 1/2 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to ParkA.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) Tax claims;

Around March 1, 2011, the head of Pyeongtaek-si Tax Office issued a notice to Park Ga to correct the value-added tax of 000 won for the first term of 2006 and pay it by March 31, 201, which is the due date for payment.

B. The process of acquiring and disposing of the real estate of this case

1) On November 11, 2008, ParkA and the Defendant, married on April 26, 201, purchased on a joint basis the real estate listed in the separate sheet from KimB to KRW 000,000, and on May 28, 2010, completed the registration of ownership transfer for each 1/2 portion of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2) On April 20, 201, ParkA and the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Defendant on April 20, 201 that “A shall terminate the title trust agreement and transfer the said shares to the Defendant” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant agreement to terminate the title trust”) regarding one-half shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet that the Defendant held in the title trust to ParkA, and on April 21, 201, ParkA entered into an agreement with the Defendant on April 21, 201 that “A shall transfer the ownership registration (hereinafter referred to as “the instant transfer registration”) based on the instant agreement to terminate the title trust agreement to the Defendant on April 21, 201.

(c) the status of the property of ParkA;

At the time of the termination of the title trust in this case, the title trust was the active property of Park Jong-A, which was the reason for the 1/2 share out of the real estate indicated in the attached list, and was equivalent to the above tax liability amounting to the small property.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 6 evidence, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, ParkA already bears the tax liability recognized prior to the date of concluding the contract for the termination of title trust of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above tax claim is the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation.

Furthermore, as seen earlier, since one-half of the real estate listed in the separate sheet at the time of the contract for the termination of title trust in this case was recognized as the sole property of ParkA, the instant contract for the termination of title trust concluded by ParkA to transfer the above shares to the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act reducing the joint security of general creditors, barring any special circumstances, and the Defendant, a beneficiary, is presumed to have been knowingly received as a gift.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

1) The defendant's argument

"The defendant purchased the real estate listed in the attached list at his own effort and cost, and it is inevitable to obtain a loan from a financial institution when it is registered under the name of the defendant alone, and purchase it under the name of the defendant and ParkA and make a registration of ownership transfer as co-owners. Therefore, the defendant asserts to the purport that "the contract for the termination of the title trust in this case is not a fraudulent act, since the title trust is terminated according to the contract for the termination of the title trust in this case and the title trust is returned to the original owner's name."

The presumption is not reversed solely on the fact that one side of a married couple's property acquired in his/her own name during marriage is presumed to be the special property of the nominal owner, and that the other side has cooperation or had contributed to the acquisition of the property. However, if the other party proves that he/she has actually acquired the property by bearing the price for the said property, the presumption is reversed, and the other party who bears the price for the said property is the actual owner of the property, and it may be recognized that the title trust was made on the part of the nominal owner for convenience (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da4278, Feb. 3, 1995; 200Da45723, Dec. 12, 200). Meanwhile, the act that a title trustee of real estate has completed the registration of ownership transfer of the trusted real estate by performing a duty to return according to the trust act does not constitute a fraudulent act as an existing performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da35884, Aug. 24, 24,

Considering the health account, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, and 6-1, 2-2, and 4-6, on April 26, 2010, when the defendant transferred 00 won of the down payment from the defendant's account to KimB, the seller of real estate listed in the separate sheet, from the defendant's account on May 27, 2010, 00 won was deposited from the defendant's account and paid 00 won of the above money as part of the purchase price to KimB, and 00 won was used as the acquisition cost of real estate listed in the separate sheet; from June 25, 2010 to March 30, 201, it was recognized that Park Jong 20 won was loaned from the defendant's account to the defendant's account, and there was no other evidence as to the defendant's remaining money paid from 0-2, 201.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the shares of Park 1/2, among the real estate listed in the attached list, are the unique property of Park A, and the defendant's assertion of title trust is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Ultimately, the instant contract for the termination of title trust concluded with respect to one-half portion of the real estate listed in the separate sheet should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant, a beneficiary of a fraudulent act, is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case as the restoration to its original state.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.