The selling of the forest land of this case to the defendant, which is his own property, in excess of the debt constitutes a fraudulent act.

The sale of the forest land of this case, which was in excess of the debt, to the defendant, constitutes a fraudulent act, since the sale of the forest land of this case, which is its own property, was made out of money which would have been easily consumed by selling other general creditors' property.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration of Fraudulent Act

2017Na5263 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

AAA

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2016Da217189 Decided January 25, 2017

July 20, 2017

November 9, 2017

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The sales contract concluded on February 24, 2015 with respect to the share of 2816/15901 among each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and HB shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 98,560,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on the instant case is based on the first instance court's judgment No. 6.

"B", and it is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion as evidence that was additionally submitted in the trial of the court. The defendant's assertion in No. 38 or No. 41-1 or No. 41-2 is rejected, and the following additional judgments are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The defendant's assertion

DeB is owned by the Seoul Central District Court 2012Na49246, which was filed against Optional and DaD.

The registration of ownership transfer of the forest of this case was completed in accordance with the protocol of mediation (Evidence A No. 3) for the execution of the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the right transfer registration, but the forest of this case was judged at Grade 2 due to the extension of the horse transmission certificate in the above lawsuit, and the defendant responded to mediation with the intention to donate the forest of this case to the defendant in consideration of the circumstances that the forest of this case was judged at Grade 3 intellectual disability. Therefore, the completion of the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the forest of this case in accordance with the above protocol of mediation is null and void because it is against the substantial will between B, the forest of this case does not correspond to the forest of this case, and there was no intention to know that the forest of this case was ultimately donated to the defendant, and the forest of this case did not constitute the forest of this case.

B. Determination

1) The Defendant was suffering from a kidney disorder in the preparatory documents dated September 26, 2016.

In February 19, 2015, upon receipt of a notice from a land manager, the method of raising money to the family members of the forest of this case was the reason for sale of the forest of this case. However, in the situation where it is impossible to sell the forest of this case to a third party because the forest of this case was occupied by another person and installed the ground water and exercising the right of retention on a yearly basis, etc., the Defendant asserted that “the Defendant would have purchased the forest of this case at the liver’s liver’s liver’s liver’s liver’s clock.” Furthermore, in the preparatory document of October 19, 2016, the Defendant asserted that “the Defendant’s her her mother was to lend considerable business capital to her, and was protecting the Defendant, who is a disabled person. However, the Defendant’s mother, who was likely to be in a complicated money relationship among her relatives and relatives, was clearly defective even if her mother did not sell the forest of this case to the Defendant.”

2) As above, in the first instance trial proceeding, HB sold the instant forest land to the Defendant.

In full view of the consistent arguments made by the defendant on the part of the defendant, while the forest of this case was known to the defendant that the forest of this case was ultimately donated to the defendant, the forest of this case did not take any measures at least one year from March 13, 2014 on which the date the mediation was completed, and the mediation protocol states that, in the content of the transfer of the forest of this case to the forest of this case from March 13, 2014, the content of the agreement is stated in the content that the forest of this case was transferred to the forest of this case to the forest of this case, it may not be deemed that the forest of this case was the intent of the defendant to donate the forest of this case to the forest of this case to the forest of this case. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion on the different premise is without merit without any need to further examine it.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.