Seoul Eastern District Court 2011 Gohap14549 ( November 22, 2011)

It is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant held the instant real estate in title trust with her husband.

The fact that the purchase fund of the real estate in this case was provided with the financial resources claimed by the defendant, most of the real estate owned by the husband was disposed of and left only the real estate in this case, is insufficient to recognize that the defendant trusted the real estate in title to the husband, and the possibility that the defendant donated the real estate in this case to the husband

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012Na2066 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

XX Kim

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2011Gahap14549 Decided November 22, 2011

September 20, 2012

October 11, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

A. Revocation of the title trust termination agreement dated December 30, 2010 on each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and the headA.

B. The defendant is against the headA,

1) The registration of the Gunsan Branch of the Jeonju District Court with respect to the real estate listed in the [Attachment Nos. 1 to 4] and completed on January 3, 201 as the receipt No. 12:

2) completed on January 3, 201 as the receipt No. 4 on January 3, 201 with respect to the real estate listed in [Attachment 5-8] No. 5 or 8

3) completed on January 3, 201 with an official order branch of the Daejeon District Court with respect to real estate listed in [Attachment 9 and 10] Nos. 9 and 10, as of January 3, 2011:

4) complete with the receipt No. 69 of January 3, 201, 201, for real estate listed in [Attachment 11] No. 11 and 12:

5) completed on January 4, 201 by the Daejeon District Court Branching Registry of the Daejeon District Court as to the real estate listed in [Attachment 13-16] No. 94;

The procedure for the cancellation registration of each transfer of ownership shall be implemented.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as to the matters asserted by the Defendant in the trial room to the following 2.3. Thus, the reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The defendant's assertion

O The instant real estate is merely a title trust with the husband, after the Defendant acquired the full payment of the price therefor, and the act of the title trustee of the real estate completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the trust real estate to the title truster as the performance of the obligation to return the real estate according to the trust act does not constitute a fraudulent act as the performance of the existing obligation.

As of October 25, 1978, the head of theOA operated the 'P' at the building located in the city of Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City 10-35 at the time of marriage with the Plaintiff on October 25, 1978, but has to pay the purchase price for the said building for one year. Since the above building was to be removed and the new building was to be constructed on October 1982, there was no funds to purchase other real estate (Evidence 1). From around April 1982 to around April 1984, there was no income from the time of opening the 'OO pharmacy' (Evidence 2) from around April 1982 until around April 1984 until the 'OO pharmacy' was opened (Evidence 2). Although several real estate were acquired after repayment of loans used as the opening expenses of the above OO pharmacy, it was also disposed of as much as the portion of the real estate owned more than 3-40 billion won in total as the stock investment was sold.

O The Defendant purchased each of the instant real estate under the following circumstances.

① Around April 1974, the Defendant acquired a pharmacist’s license and worked as an employment pharmacist for about three years until 1977 (Evidence No. 3), and around May 28, 197, the Defendant opened and operated the “YY pharmacy” in the Gangseo-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, purchased the said land at KRW 00 on November 1, 1982, and purchased the said land at KRW 203-4, 00 in the name of the company around 1986, and sold the said land at KRW 00 (the first 00 won was determined on October 17, 1986) to KRW 100 (Evidence No. 5-3), and purchased the real estate at KRW 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 106, 160, 160, 166, 165, 166, 166, 16

② On the other hand, the Defendant lent KRW 00 out of the proceeds from the sale of the relevant urban gas site to KimB, who was pro-Japanese in March 1986 (Evidence 7-1), and paid KRW 000 around August 1986, and received a transfer of the ownership of real estate No. 11 and 12 in the name of the headAB (Evidence 7-2 and Evidence 6-12) in the name of the headA.

③ Then, around June 1987, the Defendant purchased real estate Nos. 1 through 4 in the attached list (Evidence No. 8-1 of the evidence No. 8) with a loan from the land owned by the Defendant as collateral, including Seosan-si, Seosan-si, Seosan-si, the Defendant: (a) completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the joint names of the employees of the Defendant’s pharmacy and this ChapterAA (Evidence No. 6-4 of the evidence No. 6-4). At the time, the Defendant prepared a sales contract stating the Defendant and the purchaser as the grounds for title trust and received a certificate of personal seal impression for real estate sale (Evidence No. 8-3 of the evidence No. 8-2 of the evidence No. 8-3); and (b) upon thisCC’s withdrawal from the Y pharmacy around April 1993, the co-ownership was transferred to the

④ In addition, around August 1989, the Defendant purchased real estate Nos. 5-8 and 000 won listed in the separate sheet (Evidence No. 6-8 and No. 9) and paid 00 won out of the purchase price to the money at the time, and paid 00 won as borrowed money from another person, but repaid the above borrowed money with the sale price of the above urban gas site on October 17, 1989.

⑤ On August 23, 2005, the Defendant won the real estate Nos. 9,10 listed in the [Attachment List No. 9, 10 under the name of the President A (Evidence No. 6) and paid the amount of the loan from a single bank under the name of the Defendant (Evidence No. 10).

In July 1986, the Defendant first held a title trust with the head of the Dong in the name of the husband. At that time, it was a social atmosphere that the title of the property owned by the denial was left to the husband in the name of the husband, and the Defendant had several real estates already acquired under the name of the defendant, so some of the real estates newly acquired in the name of the husband was held to the head of the Dong who is the husband.

In the end of the 1980s, the head of theOA acquired several real estate recommendations by the end of the 1980s, but, while concentrating on investment in stocks from the end of the 1980s, the investment of large amounts of stocks was made in the name of the Defendant, the wife KimD, and the E, etc. (No. 15-9 and No. 16 of the evidence No. 15), and to meet this, the head and the Defendant, the Defendant, the Dong FF, KimF, Kim GG, and the Defendant’s Hah H, incurred a significant loss after re-investment in a bank under the name of the Defendant, and most of the real estate owned to repay the loan (No. 17-15 of the evidence No. 17, No. 18-2 of the evidence No. 18-2). The headA sold the real estate owned by the Defendant in the above name of the real estate, most of which have been sold by the Defendant, but is not disposed of by the husband of each of the real estate of this case.

O) Therefore, the termination contract on each real estate of this case is merely a recovery of the ownership of the real estate held in title by the Plaintiff to the head of the Dong, and thus, it cannot be deemed a fraudulent act that reduces the creditors’ security.

B. Determination

In addition to each description of Eul evidence Nos. 1-10 (including each number in the case of additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), as mentioned above, each statement of Eul evidence Nos. 1-10 (including each number in the case of additional numbers) submitted by the defendant in the trial, it may be recognized that the funds for purchasing the real estate of this case were created from various financial resources the defendant asserted above, and that most of the real estate owned by the defendant was disposed of and remaining in each of the real estate of this case. However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the defendant entrusted the title trust of each of the real estate of this case to the JJ (it cannot be ruled out that the possibility that the defendant donated each of the real estate purchased in his own name and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the head A

The defendant's above assertion is groundless and rejected.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.