Revocation of Fraudulent Act

The registration of inheritance of this case is subject to revocation of fraudulent act due to the bad faith of the delinquent and the case resulting in excess of debts.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

Cheongju District Court Decision 2016Na115456 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

- Appellants

M

AA

National Rotations

April 14, 2017

2, 2017.6

1. As to 2/9 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet

A. The Defendant and Nonparty A cancel the agreement on the division of inherited property concluded on November 5, 2013, and B. The Defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on March 25, 2014 by the Cheongju District Court No. 36855.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are the same as the order of the Gu office to which the defendant is liable.

1. Basic facts

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) was owned by the Defendant’s husband, who was the Defendant’s husband, but died on November 5, 2013, and the Defendant, the heir, the Defendant, the Child CA, and D agreed on the division of the inherited property (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement on the division of inherited property”). On March 25, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate based on the agreement on the division of inherited property.

B. At the time of the agreement on the division of the inherited property of this case, the Plaintiff had a claim of KRW 74,414,340 as shown in the attached Table against A among the inheritors B at the time of the agreement on the division of the inherited property of this case. Meanwhile, at the time of the agreement on the division of the inherited property of this case, A had no particular property other than the inherited property of this case

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including each number in the case of a tentative number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the fraudulent act is constituted;

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

The agreement on the division of inherited property is to confirm the reversion of inherited property by performing all or part of the inherited property, which has been provisionally owned by each inheritor, or as a new co-inheritors, with respect to the inherited property, which has been provisionally owned by each inheritor, and thus becomes subject to the exercise of the right to revoke a fraudulent act. Meanwhile, barring any special circumstance, the debtor's act of selling and selling real property, which is one of his own exclusive property, and replacing it with money easily consumed or transferring it to another person without compensation, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring any special circumstance. Thus, even if a debtor in excess of his/her obligation has reduced joint security against the general creditor by giving up his/her right to his/her inherited property upon consultation on the division of inherited property, it constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor in principle (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da73765, Mar. 13, 2008; 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007).

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

The Defendant: (a) the instant real estate is a property acquired by the Defendant and B, a couple’s joint efforts before the death of B, and owned by the Defendant that was donated to the Defendant by B before the death of B; (b) thus, the inheritor, who was a self-employed inheritor, waives his share of inheritance so that it can be consistent with the substance; and (c) thus, the instant agreement on the division of inherited property is alleged to constitute a fraudulent act or to be in good faith by failing to know that it was a fraudulent act; and (d) the property acquired by the husband and wife in his name during marriage shall be regarded as its unique property (Article 830(1) of the

3. According to the Defendant’s duty to restore, the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case with respect to shares 2/9 out of the instant real estate should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration with respect to shares 2/9 out of the instant real estate.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.