Suwon District Court-2014-Annex-72312 (Law No. 21, 2016)

The reason why the divorce and the division of property have been fulfilled does not constitute a fraudulent act.

In light of the developments leading up to the implementation of divorce and division of property, the debtor cannot be deemed to have concluded the transfer contract with the intent of harming the creditor by in collusion with the beneficiary, not with the intention of fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act and restitution to its original state.

Seoul High Court 2016Na2021818 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AA

Suwon District Court 2014Gahap72312

on 21, 2016

on 18, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The revocation of an agreement on the division of property added in the trial and the subsequent lawsuit shall be dismissed in the part of the claim for refund of the bill;

Cheong-gu and purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The transfer and takeover contract of each bill entered in the separate sheet on December 3, 2013 between the defendant and Kim 00 shall be revoked. The defendant shall return each bill entered in the separate sheet to Kim 00. The defendant shall return each bill to Kim 00 on June 12, 2012, where real estate is sold between the defendant and Kim 00, 000, 000, 3.5 billion won in the proceeds of sale, and 50 million won in the case of selling real estate. The defendant shall return each bill entered in the separate sheet entered in the separate sheet transferred on December 3, 2013 (the plaintiff added the claim for the cancellation of the division agreement and the return of the bill at the trial).

1. Revocation of an assignment contract of this case and a claim for the return of the bill subsequent thereto;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Revocation of the agreement on the division of property added in the trial, and a claim for return of the bill subsequent thereto;

1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant division of property ought to be revoked by fraudulent act, and that, accordingly, the Defendant should return each of the bills listed in the separate sheet to Kim 00.

2) We examine ex officio.

A lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act shall be brought within one year from the date when the creditor becomes aware of the cause for revocation (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act). According to the records, the Plaintiff, in a preparatory document dated May 26, 2015, asserted that the instant claim transfer agreement constitutes a fraudulent act concluded in collusion with the Defendant and Kim 00 for the purpose of undermining the Plaintiff, who is a tax claim holder, and that the instant claim for property division agreement was concluded only before the transfer of the instant real estate was remarkably excessive. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the instant claim for property division was concluded as a fraudulent act of Kim 00 at the latest around the time when the creditor submitted a preparatory document as of May 26, 2016, and that the Plaintiff sought for the revocation of the instant agreement and the return of the said additional claim as to the instant property division agreement after the lapse of one year from May 26, 2015, as the Plaintiff sought for the revocation of the claim and return of the said portion.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the transfer of claim of this case and the return of the bill shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is so decided, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed as well as the lawsuit for cancellation of the contract for division of property of this case added at the court of first instance and the return of the bill shall be dismissed as it is unlawful. Thus, it