in the case of transfer of the sole property in excess of liabilities, unless there are special circumstances

The conclusion of a sales contract with the defendant on each of the instant real property, the sole property in excess of debt, constitutes a fraudulent act that leads to the reduction of common creditors' joint security, barring special circumstances. If the debtor's act of disposal of property to a third party constitutes a fraudulent act, the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed.

2012 Ghana 513934 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

CHAPTER AAAA

April 24, 2013

May 29, 2013

1. Each of the real estates entered into on May 14, 2012 in the separate sheet between the Defendant and KimBB

The sales contract shall be revoked.

2. The Defendant: (a) on each real estate listed in the separate sheet to KimB, the registration office of the Gwangju District Court 2012.

5. 15. The procedures for registration of cancellation of each transfer of ownership completed under No. 96116 will be implemented.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

The details of the taxation claims held by the Plaintiff against KimB are as listed in the following table, and the director of the tax office of the North Mine State under his/her control of the Plaintiff shall file a revised return on the under-reported return on the sales of the business place of KimB on April 23, 2012.

The notice was sent, but KimB did not pay the amount in arrears, between 2009 and 2011.

After conducting an integrated investigation of individual entrepreneurs, KimB notified the amount in arrears between August 201 and October 2012.

(The following table omitted):

B. Disposition by KimB-B

On May 14, 2012, KimB entered into a sales contract (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case") with the defendant who is a child with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each of the real estate of this case"), which is the only property in excess of the debt, after receiving the revised report from the director of the tax office for the revised transfer of ownership, and completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as "registration of ownership transfer of this case").

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including paper numbers), and arguments

The purport of the whole

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

The Plaintiff’s claim against KimB is due to the date of the instant sales contract, and is subject to the obligee’s right of revocation. According to the above facts, the conclusion of the sales contract with the Defendant on each of the instant real estate, which is the only property in excess of the obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act that causes the reduction of the common creditor’s joint security, barring special circumstances, and the beneficiary’s bad faith is presumed to have been presumed to have been presumed to have been committed as a fraudulent act. Accordingly, the instant sales contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed with respect to each of the instant real estate by restitution to its original state.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant concluded a sales contract on the condition that all the obligations related to each of the instant real estate of KimB shall be taken over by KimB, and thus, the instant sales contract does not constitute fraudulent act, and the defendant asserts that it is bona fide. Each of the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers) is hard to reverse the above facts of recognition, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to each of the above evidence, the amount that the defendant paid to KimB is merely 00 won, and thus the disposal act of KimBB constitutes fraudulent act, and the defendant is a malicious beneficiary.

B. Upon purchasing each of the instant real estate, the Defendant acquired the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation’s collateral and the obligation to return lease deposit from KimBB with respect to the instant real estate.

Although restitution is not possible, the above argument by the defendant is without merit because the debtor remains changed without cancelling the right to collateral security established before the fraudulent act.

4. Conclusion

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