The agreement on division of inherited property is subject to the exercise of the right to revoke the fraudulent act.

Since the agreement on division of inherited property is a juristic act aimed at property rights by its nature, it can be subject to the exercise of the right to revoke the fraudulent act. The case where the joint security against the general creditor has decreased due to the waiver of the right to the inherited property by the debtor having already been in excess of his/her obligation, it constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor in principle.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

2015 Ghana 5214588 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

by giving up his portion of inheritance in respect of this real estate upon division consultation;

Inasmuch as the joint security against the right holder has been reduced, the portion of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

agreement shall constitute a fraudulent act against other creditors, including the plaintiff, etc., in respect of 3/7 of the inheritance shares of CCC.

CCC, the debtor, has caused the damage to the general creditors including the plaintiff.

It is reasonable to see that it was aware that it would have been a beneficiary, and CCC is a beneficiary as an infant.

The defendants are presumed to have known of these circumstances.

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

1) Whether CCC’s special proceeds exist

A) The assertion

CCC has already commenced prior to the commencement of inheritance from the Deceased, paragraphs (1) through (4) below.

Inasmuch as special proceeds of KRW 1,254,538,652 were received, a specific share of inheritance for division of property should be calculated based on the total amount revised by adding these amounts. However, considering the value of the real estate of this case as KRW 653,00,000,000, the value of the real estate of this case is KRW 1,907,538,652, based on the total amount of the above special proceeds, KRW 817,516,565, and there is no specific share of inheritance for an inheritance by deducting KRW 1,254,538,652 from the special proceeds.

① 507,000,000 won, which is the amount acquired by the deceased out of the total principal amount of the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the instant real property

(2) 57,584,670 won, which was subrogated by the deceased to the creditor Korea Asset Management Corporation in the comprehensive commerce of Sejongwon.

(3) 368,323,982 won deposited from January 20, 199 to May 20, 2005, in bbb operated by CCC in human alliance (former Aaa) operated by the Deceased.

(4) Promissory notes recovered by the deceased 321,630,000 won

B) Determination

(1) In a case where there is a person among co-inheritors who specially supported an inheritee or contributed to the maintenance or increase of the inheritee’s property by living together, nursing or any other means for a considerable period of time, the amount calculated by deducting such person’s contribution as determined by an agreement among co-inheritors from the value of the inheritee’s property at the time of the commencement of the inheritance as inherited property, and is calculated by adding the designated inherited portion or statutory inherited portion to the contributory portion, and thus, such an amount is the inherited portion (Article 1008-2(1) of the Civil Act). As such, the designated inherited portion or statutory inherited portion does not directly constitute the inherited portion of the co-inheritors, but rather

Therefore, even if a debtor in excess of his/her obligation waives his/her right to inherited property through a division consultation of inherited property, and consequently the joint collateral for general creditors has been reduced, it does not require revocation as a fraudulent act, unless the result of division of property is deemed to fall short of the extent equivalent to the above specific share of inheritance, and even in cases where the amount falls short of the extent equivalent to the specific share of inheritance, the scope of revocation as a fraudulent act should be limited to the portion falling short thereof. In such cases, the circumstances that the specific share of inheritance, such as the existence of designated inheritance, contributory portion, special benefit, etc., differs from the statutory share of inheritance should be asserted and proved by the debtor (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51797, Feb.

(2) As to whether CCC had already received special profits 1,254,538,652 won prior to the commencement of inheritance from the deceased, pleadings are made in the descriptions of health class, Gap evidence 3, and Eul evidence 4 to 22.

In full view of the whole purport of this case, ① the debtor bbBBB Co., Ltd. established with respect to the real property of this case

(2) The Korea Asset Management Corporation filed a lawsuit against CCC and the Deceased, etc. on the claim for the amount of the debt, and the amount of the maximum debt amount, KRW 500,000,000, was changed to the Deceased by a series of contract acquisition.

329,055,254 won damages for delay was adjudicated in favor of the court, and in response thereto,

D. In the event that the deceased’s debt amount has increased to 1,105,062,620 won, national assets as a fixed amount of debt

The management corporation paid KRW 57,584,670 to the management corporation, and ③ Defendant BB is the representative director, and DDD Co., Ltd., the deceased of which is one of its inside directors, is bbbB corporation from January 20, 199 to May 2005.

20. up to 20.368,323,982 won was deposited by the recipient or endorser.

A promissory note distributed in such a manner may be found to have been partially recovered by the deceased, but only the fact of such recognition

(1) the amount of debt or money received as above shall be determined by CCC from the deceased.

that is not received without any transaction or consideration, and otherwise recognized as such.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion that KRW 1,254,538,652, which is the sum of the said money, should be reflected in the calculation of the inherited property due to inheritance of the deceased, as the special profit of the CCC cannot be accepted.

2) The value as a joint collateral of the instant real estate

A) The assertion

A debt secured by senior collateral security established on the instant real property;

Since 507,00,000 won, the real estate in this case does not have a substance as a joint security in light of its market price.

B) Determination

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 3 and 8, the inherited property of this case shall be divided into the whole purport of the pleading.

At the time of consultation, ○ Bank established the right to collateral security, which is the right to collateral security.

In addition, as of January 13, 2016, the amount of secured debt is KRW 500,000,000, and as of July 7, 2015, the appraised value of KRW 898,00,000, which was calculated as of July 7, 2015 with respect to subparagraph 201, which was related to the market price of the real estate in this case, is KRW 898,00,000, and the entire area of the real estate in this case is the area of KRW 151.83 square meters on the first floor and KRW 53.43 square meters on the second floor, which is the exclusive ownership of KRW 201,51.83 square meters on the second floor, which is the exclusive ownership of the real estate in this case, is larger than the market price of KRW 898,00,000,000 on the above point of time. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion that there is no value in the real estate in this case is without merit.

3) The effect of the money paid to the Plaintiff in another lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act on the instant lawsuit

Nonparty 5, Inc., filed a lawsuit of revocation of fraudulent act against the Defendants of this case under the court 2014 group 209591, and on June 10, 2015, the court examined the instant case.

The fact that the Defendants paid KRW 15,00,000 to eee Loan Co., Ltd. is final and conclusive by making a compulsory adjustment decision, and there is no dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff asserts that there is no interest in seeking revocation in this case concerning the sum of KRW 30,000,000 paid by the defendants in the above lawsuit, but if the plaintiff is not superior to each other even if the same legal act is subject to revocation, it is separate lawsuit.

and the effect of the payment of the money to the plaintiff in a lawsuit

As such, it should be deemed that only the parties to the lawsuit are the relative parties.

The defendants' above assertion that its effect has an effect on the other lawsuit shall also affect the other lawsuit.

shall not be held.

4) Whether the extinctive prescription of the instant taxation claim has expired and waived

A) The assertion

The taxation claim of this case has expired five years after the lapse of five years, and the plaintiff's own disposal of losses.

Because of the waiver of the claim, there is no preserved claim in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act in this case.

B) Determination

Article 27 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013)

According to paragraph (1), the extinctive prescription of a tax claim shall be five years, but pursuant to Article 28 (1) 4 of the same Act.

The extinctive prescription shall be interrupted by seizure. However, according to each description of Gap evidence Nos. 9 and 10

the global income tax for 199, the tax claim against CCC, and the securities transaction tax for 200, which shall accrue to CCC;

January 30, 2002, before the completion of the extinctive prescription of transfer income tax for the year 2001, shares owned by the plaintiff

Since it can be recognized that 160 shares issued by a companyfff are seized, the extinctive prescription has been interrupted, and therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

In addition, even if the plaintiff made a disposition on deficits, it is clear that the tax authority imposed internal decision on the execution by the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to prove that it was expressed in CCC as the debtor's intent to waive the tax claim of this case. Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff renounced the tax claim is without merit.

D. Sub-determination

Ultimately, the part corresponding to 3/7 shares, the legal inheritance of the CCC on the instant real estate, among the split-off consultations, should be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff. As a result, the Defendants are obliged to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer transfer due to the restoration of each of 3/14 shares of the said real estate to its original state.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's primary claim against the defendants of this case shall be accepted on the ground of the reasons.

this decision is delivered with the judgment of the court.

Korea

1. AA;

2. BB

May 23, 2017

June 16, 2017

1. The agreement on the division of inherited property concluded on August 21, 2014 between the Defendants and CCC (420707-10****) with respect to 3/7 shares in the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. The Defendants will implement each procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on September 1, 2014 by the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court) No. 19327 with respect to 3/14 shares in the real estate listed in the separate sheet to CCC.

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

The purport of the claim of the Gu's prop-oriented claim is as shown in the Disposition.

Preliminary Claim:

1. The Defendants and CCC (420707-10***) cancel the agreement on the division of inherited property concluded on August 21, 2014 with respect to 3/7 shares in the real estate listed in the separate sheet within the limit of KRW 140,571,429.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Tax claims against the Plaintiff CCC

Reversion

Date of Notification

Deadline for payment

Notice Tax Amount

Amount in arrears

1 global income tax

1994

October 1, 1999 2,726,230 4,825,140 2 October 31, 1999

Securities Transaction Tax

October 1, 2000 on January 1, 2000

57.570

3

Transfer Income Tax

200

The sum total of March 1, 200,578,570 on March 1, 2001 1, 2001 178,023,890

1033,359,800 182,906,780 The Plaintiff, on June 29, 2015, has a claim of KRW 182,906,780 in total of the global income tax and capital gains tax in arrears (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax claim”) with the lapse of the due date for payment as described in the above table as of June 29, 2015, which was the date of filing the instant lawsuit.

1) CCC and non-party DD are married, and the Defendants are born between them. DDR died on June 10, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “DD”). 2) CCC and the Defendants, as co-inheritorss of the deceased, concluded an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement on division of inherited property”) under which only the Defendants jointly own the real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is owned by the deceased, except for the scrap metal, on August 21, 2014.

3) The Defendants completed each registration of ownership transfer on one-half share of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet as Seoul Central District Court No. 19327, Sept. 1, 2014.

C. Property status of the CCC

CCC was active property at the time of August 21, 2013, which was the date of the instant agreement on the division of the inherited property, and was owned in order to be owned in accordance with this Ordinance, and was KRW 773, 674, 674, 674, 2,987,845, 2,595, 2,95,60, 1,571, 995, and 7,15,40, and 400, the aggregate of the assessed value based on the standard market price of the land in Mara-do, Jindo-do, Jindo-do, Jindo-do, Do-gun, Mado-do-gun, the inherited property. At the time of CCC, there were no grounds for recognition / [Article 182,906,780], the purport of the pleading as to whether there was any dispute, the purport of Gap-do-do-do-gun, 3/70,000.

2. Determination as to the cause of the instant claim

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff had the instant tax claim against CCC at the time of the instant split-off agreement, and thus the said claim is subject to the obligee’s right of revocation.

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

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 by performing as a new co-ownership relationship, with respect to the inherited property, and thus becomes subject to the acquisition of property rights by its nature. Therefore, a fraudulent act may be the subject of the exercise of the right to revoke a fraudulent act. Meanwhile, barring any special circumstance, the debtor's act of selling and selling real estate, which is one of his own 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 in a case where the debtor in excess of his/her obligation has reduced joint security against the general creditor by giving up his/her right to his/her share of inherited property upon consultation on the division of inherited property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007).