a fraudulent act of which the excess of obligations has become worse due to the donation.

Since the small property at the time of donation was already in excess of the active property, and the excess of the obligation was worse due to the donation, it constitutes a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances where the debtor donated his/her property to another person under the excess of the obligation.

2011 Gohap 10255 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

IsaA

August 29, 2012

September 12, 2012

1. The contract of 00 won concluded on May 29, 2009 and the contract of 000 won concluded on June 1, 2009 shall be revoked, respectively.

2 The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final to the day of complete payment.

3 Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Tax claims against the Plaintiff’s ChoB

ChoB sold to the Korea National Housing Corporation each of the buildings of 850 square meters and 200 square meters and above ground of 000 square meters and 000 square meters and above ground in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, on May 8, 2009, the Plaintiff sold 000 capital gains tax for the year 2009 (200 capital gains tax for 31 December 2009, and due date for payment on August 31, 2010, when each of the above sales was the cause of taxation, (200 capital gains tax for 200 capital gains tax for 2009 and 31, 2010). Since the Plaintiff did not pay the capital gains tax for 00 square meters and 0 capital gains tax for 13 July 2011, the Plaintiff did not pay the said capital gains tax to the Plaintiff.

(b) Cash payments to the Defendant by section B.

On May 27, 2009, ChoB received from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation a claim for land compensation equivalent to the same amount in lieu of the payment of approximately KRW 000,000, which deducted the secured debt amount of the right to collateral security established on the land and building subject to each of the above sales proceeds from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation. On May 29, 2009, ChoB transferred KRW 00,000 out of the remainder of the cash after the repayment of the debt amount to the financial institutions, etc. from the discounted amount of the above land compensation claim, and deposited KRW 00,000 from the above NA account to the new bank account (Account Number 0,000) of ChoB. On the same day, ChoB transferred the above account number from the Defendant’s new bank account to the Defendant’s account (Account Number 00,000: 00). The Defendant’s new bank account transfer KRW 600,000,000 from the above NAB account.

(c) the financial status of Section B;

(B) The status of the property immediately before such payment to the Defendant is made shall be as follows:

[Attachment 1] The financial status immediately before the payment of KRW 000 on May 29, 2009

(List 1) omitted

[Attachment 2] The financial status immediately before the payment of KRW 000 on June 1, 2009

(Attachment 2) omitted

[Ground of Recognition] Unstrifics without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including each number), the inquiry results on the truth of the tax corporation, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination

A. Formation of preserved claims

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee's right of revocation has arisen before the act was conducted as a matter of principle, it was highly probable that at the time of the fraudulent act, there was a legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of the obligee's right of revocation, and that the claim should be established in the future. In case where a claim has been established as a result of realizing the probability 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 2000Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001). The date of establishment and notification of the Plaintiff's duty of tax payment with respect to the above tax claim was made on May 29, 200 and June 1, 200, and the above 00 won were paid on May 8, 2009, and the Defendant concluded each above sales contract, and made on May 27, 2009, and the above tax claim is highly probable.

(b) The debtor's fraudulent act;

(i)the nature of the above payments;

On May 29, 2009, the Plaintiff asserts that the payment of KRW 00 to the Defendant on May 29, 200, and that the payment of KRW 00 to the Defendant on June 1, 200 is each gift. The Defendant, while the above KRW 00 was repaid to the Defendant on 00,000, and the above KRW 00 was given on behalf of the Defendant to the Defendant’s second 5,000,000 to the Defendant’s second 7,000,000,000,000,000,000.3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,00.

O AB and the defendant are marital relations.

O If the period of transfer of KRW 000 from the account under the name of KR to the account under the name of NA over four times, and the period of transfer of money from the account under the name of NA to the account under the name of NA over several times is excluded from the above period of transfer over the above two times, the entire transaction details of the account under the name of NA during the period from 2005 to 2009 and the account under the name of NA cannot be confirmed.

O The above amount transferred from 2005 to 2009 to the account under the name of KRB from 2005 to EL, and thus it is difficult to readily conclude the interest on the borrowed amount as interest on the loan.

O There is no evidence to acknowledge the payment details of the periodical payment of the amount borrowed from the Defendant by Section B.

C. On April 29, 2010, 200 won was transferred from the account in the name of the Defendant to the account in the territory of 2010, and on April 29, 2000, money continued to have been changed between the account in the name of the Defendant and the account in the name of the Defendant.

O The amount of the claim against CB claimed by the Defendant and the amount paid by CB to the Defendant on May 29, 2009 is not in accord with that amount.

O The defendant asserts that the defendant received the above 000 won from the defendant's account in the name of the defendant was repaid on behalf of the OO, but there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the defendant was delegated with the repayment authority by this KR.

O Even after the Defendant received the above KRW 000, the Defendant did not pay it to KR.

2) Whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act

According to the facts found above, as shown in [Attachment 1], the small property of Section B at the time of donation on May 29, 2009 was already in excess of the active property of KRW 000 and has already been in excess of the obligation, and the above loan has deteriorated more, and as described in [Attachment 2], the small property of Section B at the time of donation on June 1, 2009 was already in excess of the active property of KRW 00,000, and the above loan has become more worse than the obligation due to the above donation. If a debtor donated his own property to another person while over obligation, this act constitutes a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da62167, Jun. 15, 2006), and each of the above donations to the defendant of Section B constitutes each fraudulent act, and there is no reason to acknowledge that each of the above defendant's assertion against the above defendant's each of the above donations was without merit.

(c) Presumption of the debtor's intent to commit harm and beneficiary's bad faith;

The fact that the above donation against the defendant of ChoB constitutes a fraudulent act, and that ChoB is aware that this would result in the reduction of the common creditors' joint security. The defendant's bad faith as a beneficiary is presumed as long as the debtor's intent to harm is recognized.

(d) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

The donation contract of KRW 000,000, which was concluded on May 29, 2009 between ChoB and the Defendant and the donation contract of KRW 000,000, which was concluded on June 1, 2009, constitute each fraudulent act and thus revoked. The fact that each of the above money deposited into the Defendant’s account was consumed is deemed to have been led to the confession of the Plaintiff’s assertion by the Defendant not being clearly disputed by the Defendant.

3. Conclusion

Since it is impossible to restore each of the above donations by the method of returning originals following the revocation of fraudulent act, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a compensation for value of KRW 000 (=00 won +000) as compensation for losses for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day following the conclusion of the judgment of this case to the day of full payment. The plaintiff's claim is accepted for reasons.