Whether it constitutes a fraudulent act

Since the gift made to the Defendants, the financial status of the Defendants, including the Plaintiff, is insufficient to secure the obligees' claims, and the Plaintiff was aware that there was a risk that the repayment of claims would be difficult for the Plaintiff, the intention is recognized, and the Defendants, the beneficiaries, are presumed to have been malicious.

Civil Procedure Act

District Court 2017Gahap56322 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Transfer Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as "Transfer Income Tax")

F. The amount of the instant case for which B/B is delinquent against the Plaintiff at the time of the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit

The Do income tax is KRW 519,557,370, including additional charges.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

1) Relevant legal principles

Claim protected by obligee's right of revocation is, in principle, a fraudulent act.

(2) If the action was committed before the commission of such action, the

There is a legal relationship which forms the basis of the establishment and is based on such legal relationship in the near future.

There is a high probability of the establishment of a claim and its opening in the nearest future.

in the event that a claim has been realized and has been created, the claim shall also be subject to the creditor's right of revocation.

(2) The transfer margin of assets (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da76426, Feb. 23, 2012).

income tax on the last day of the month in which the amount serving as the tax base occurs.

The obligation to pay is abstractly established (Supreme Court Decision 92Nu7887 delivered on March 23, 1993, etc.).

section 21 of the National Tax Collection Act, the additional charges shall not be paid by the due date.

as a kind of incidental tax imposed in the meaning of interest in arrears with respect to the unpaid portion, for which the authority to impose tax has become final and conclusive.

If national taxes are not paid by the due date without due process, under Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act;

As a matter of course, the amount is determined and determined (Supreme Court Decision 2006Da2006 Decided June 29, 2007).

6753 see Supreme Court Decision 66753

2) Determination

Pursuant to the foregoing legal doctrine, health department, B.B. on June 19, 2014 Ggdong 695-23, 2014

The obligation to pay capital gains tax is abstract by concluding a sales contract for a site and building.

(2) The effect that the transfer income tax claim is highly likely to be established in the near future.

There was a possibility that the capital gains tax was imposed on B.B. thereafter, it is probable that it was actually imposed on B.B.

Since bonds have been created, the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax claim against B/B shall be revoked by the obligee.

(b) the transfer of the right first taxed in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier.

519,557,370 won, including additional dues imposed after KRW 372,169,30,00, shall be deemed to be a creditor.

It shall be the preserved claim of the right of recourse.

B. Whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act

Mebb to the account of Hongii, at the time of the transfer of 436,00,000 won to

The Defendants: (a) with respect to the fact that KbB was in excess of its obligation at the time of donation of the forest land

As it is not disputed, B. B. at the time of the transfer of this case and the donation contract for Defendant C.

It is based on the premise that the debt has been in excess.

1) Defendant Kima

A) Whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act

Lbbb. A loan of KRW 436,00,000 from the National Agricultural Cooperative on June 23, 2014 and interest thereon.

ii Act remitted to the account in gg-dong 590-6 owed by Defendant Kima to Hongii

The above remittance act is deemed to be a substitute for the obligation to pay the purchase price for a site.

Since there seems to be any circumstance that there was a benefit in return for Defendant Kima pursuant to this paragraph, Mab on June 2014.

23. Conclusion of a contract of donation of KRW 436,00,000 in cash with Defendant Kima and donation thereof;

It is reasonable to see that a juristic act detrimental to a creditor who is the requirement of creditor's right of revocation has been done as joint security by reducing the debtor's property due to the act of disposing of the creditor's property.

An obligee by reason of the lack of one story of joint security in a state of loss or lack;

It means that the debtor cannot fully satisfy his claim, so such fraudulent act is a debtor.

Pefore disposing of property, not only is in excess of obligations, but also is required to give money, etc.

It can only be established in the case where the disposal in question is in excess of the obligation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da6808 Decided April 29, 2005, etc.). The beginning of the obligation at the time of the remittance of this case

An act of Mabbb in a state to donate cash to Defendant Kima as above has already been an act of payment

It is special that bbb in excess is detrimental to the creditor by deepening the excess of obligations.

Unless circumstances exist, this constitutes a fraudulent act.

B) The assertion that the name holder of the loan to fff agricultural cooperative is Defendant Kima

(1) Defendant Kima's assertion

Korea

Kim** et al.

Gga 590-6 site sales contract (hereinafter referred to as “the balance”) was remitted as a balance to the Gga 590-6 site sales contract

“The remittance of this case” is referred to as “the remittance of this case.

(d) in addition, Lbb, on July 16, 2014, to the Defendant C, an ASEAN, the ASEAN, e-dong 131 Forest land in e-dong, e-dong 131 Forest land.

A contract is concluded to donate 1,488 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the forest of this case") to the Defendant on July 17, 2014.

Suwon District Court d branch court d on July 17, 2014 received No. 23204 on July 17, 2014

The registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of ownership transfer of this case") has been completed.

(e) inter-bb shall transfer the above site and buildings g-dong 695-23 site and buildings and report capital gains tax.

However, the director of the tax office under the Plaintiff did not pay it, and the director of the tax office under the Plaintiff’s jurisdiction did not pay it to Mab on November 10, 2014.

On December 31, 2014, the payment deadline was determined and notified KRW 372,169,300 of capital gains tax (hereinafter referred to as "the capital gains tax").

Kima is loaned in the name of bbb beyond that borrowed in its own name.

The loan limit is high, and the grace period for the payment of interest is long, etc., B.B.

A person who has received a loan under the name of the principal of the loan and is currently repaid the interest of the loan shall be defendant Kima-a.

as above, since gg-dong 695-23 sites and buildings have been secured by such loans.

If the loan obligation is not satisfied, the defendant Kima must, in the end, repay the above obligation, and the representative must do so.

The actual debtor of the withdrawing obligation is defendant Kimaa, and is not a donation of cash from Mebb.

Therefore, the remittance of this case asserts that it does not constitute a fraudulent act.

(2) Determination

The actual obligation of the above loan solely on the evidence submitted by the defendant Kima and the defendant Kima

It is insufficient to recognize that the defendant is the above defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

This part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

2) Defendant Intercc

B. At the time of donation of the forest land of this case to Defendant C, the forest land of this case was in excess of its obligation;

Where a debtor donates his/her property to another person under excess of his/her obligation, there are no special circumstances.

on the ground that such an act constitutes a fraudulent act, as seen earlier, Defendant C.C.

any gift of the forest of this case shall be deemed to have been in excess of the obligation of K bb, which was already in excess of the obligation

It constitutes a fraudulent act that harms creditors by making it possible to do so.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, both donations made to the Defendants of Mabbbb constitutes a fraudulent act.

C. Tbb and the Defendants’ bad faith

1) Determination

Tbb is due to the gift to the Defendants, that its property status and claims including the Plaintiff.

may not secure their claims, and there is a risk that the plaintiff may be unable to receive the repayment of claims.

Since it was aware that there was a tension, liverB's intention is recognized and beneficiary.

The Defendants’ bad faith is also presumed.

2) The defendants' assertion

A) As to this, Defendant Kima shall plan to pay the principal his obligations of loans under the name of inter-bbb.

of this case, as the defendant Tzec is to manage the tombstones, such as the temple located above the forest of this case.

Since forests and fields are donated, the Defendants asserted that they are bona fide beneficiaries.

B) As to the debtor's bad faith in a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act, such action shall be taken

The beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is a bad faith, although the claimant has the burden of proving that the

to the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser, unless the burden of proof exists to the creditor or to the subsequent purchaser.

the debtor's act of disposal of property constitutes a fraudulent act.

the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser at the time of the fraudulent act or the subsequent purchase is deemed to have been bona fide;

of the debtor or beneficiary in accordance with objective and Do evidence, etc.

Miscellaneously, only a statement that is merely a statement or a statement that is merely a third party's prosecution, which is a fraudulent or deceptive act;

The judgment of the lower court that the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser was a bona fide person should not be readily concluded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da1548

11. Supreme Court Decision 2014Da237192 Decided 2014Da237192 Decided January 1, 2008; bb in cash or in the instant forest

At the time of contribution, the Plaintiff had already been liable to pay capital gains tax of KRW 372,169,30 to the Plaintiff.

Since the facts between husband and wife, or between husband and wife, and the defendants are the same as mentioned above, they are so far.

Considering the above, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone constitutes a bona fide beneficiary.

There is a lack of recognition and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the donation of KRW 436,00,000, which was concluded between Crossbb and Defendant Kima on June 23, 2014

The contract shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and Defendant Kima shall recover to the Plaintiff 436,00,000

The rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from the day after the judgment of the plaintiff and its judgment is confirmed to the day of complete payment.

and between Between BB and Defendant C in the instant case.

The contract for donation concluded on July 16, 2014 with respect to forest land shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant inter-bb

the Plaintiff’s transfer registration of ownership in this case, which was completed with respect to the forest of this case due to its restitution.

shall have an obligation to implement the registration procedures for cancellation.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so ordered as per Disposition by admitting it.

this decision is rendered.

on October 1, 2018 08

on January 29, 2018

1. The contract of gift amounting to KRW 436,00,000, which was concluded on June 23, 2014 between Defendant Kima and Mabb shall be revoked.

2. Defendant Kima shall pay to the Plaintiff 436,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

3. The gift agreement concluded on July 16, 2014 with respect to 1,488 square meters of forest 1,488 square meters in e-si e-dong, e-dong, e-si, Do, shall be revoked.

4. The defendant liverc will implement the procedure for the cancellation of registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on July 17, 2014 by the Suwon District Court D branch branch on the real estate stated in paragraph 3, and completed on July 17, 2014.

5. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

It is the same as the order of the Gu office (the complaint seeks revocation of the contract of donation within the limit of KRW 436,00,000 in relation to paragraph (1) of this Article, but the above amount is the full amount of the donation, and it is deemed to seek revocation of the whole contract of donation

1. Basic facts

A. On June 19, 2014, non-party bb sold to the non-party hhh Hhhhhm clan (hereinafter referred to as "the clan of this case") the site of gfff g g g 695-23 and its ground building (hereinafter referred to as "gg 695-23 site and building") for KRW 1,740,000,000, and the above clan's collective security debt of KRW 1,096,00,000 and the lease deposit repayment obligation of KRW 86,00,000,000, total of KRW 1,096,000,000, and the remaining purchase price of KRW 644,740,000,000, 700,0000, 000, 200, 2006, 2036,000.

B. Meanwhile, on June 19, 2014, the Defendant Kima purchased the instant clan from the instant clan for KRW 850,000,00 of the purchase price, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the said Defendant’s name on the said site on June 23, 2014.

(c) On June 23, 2014, Mabb extended KRW 436,00,000 from gg-dong 590-6 land purchased by Defendant Kima from the clan of this case as security for g-dong 590-6 land purchased from the clan of this case from fff agricultural cooperative (hereinafter referred to as "fff agricultural cooperative"), and immediately borrowed the above money in the account of Redii of the clan of this case.