logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.02.02 2016나59605
사해행위취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. As of July 1, 2014, the Plaintiff, as the representative director of C, and the oligopolistic shareholder of the said company, has a taxation claim of KRW 86,747,180 under Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act against Nonparty B, who is an oligopolistic shareholder of the said company.

B. Each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) had completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the network I, the father of B, but after the deceased I’s death, the heir B, the Defendant, the wife, the Justice, and K (ASEAN) agreed on May 18, 2015 that the Defendant would succeed to the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”), and thereafter, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 20, 2015 due to the inheritance by agreement division.

C. Meanwhile, at the time of the instant agreement on the division of inherited property, B, as active property, owned an amount equivalent to KRW 13,072,00 in addition to the inheritance shares of the instant real estate (2/9) with H Co., Ltd., while at the same time, B was in excess of the obligation due to the Plaintiff’s burden of tax liability of KRW 86,747,180.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 12, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The agreement on the division of the inherited property established by a fraudulent act is to confirm the ownership of the inherited property, in whole or in part, which is a provisional co-inheritors upon commencement of inheritance, by either as a sole ownership of each inheritor or as a new co-ownership relationship, and thus, it is a juristic act aimed at property rights by its nature. Therefore, it can be subject to the exercise of the right to revoke a fraudulent act. Meanwhile, the debtor's act of selling real property only to sell and changing it into money easily for consumption or transferring it to another person without compensation, barring any special circumstance, becomes a fraudulent act against the creditor. Thus,

arrow