The sole fact that the sole property was donated is insufficient to conclude it as a malicious beneficiary.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to see that all personal or business debt relations were known to all, it is insufficient to conclude that the sole property of the husband was donated to the apartment, which is the sole property of the husband, as the

2012 Ghana 4596 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

UnionA

November 23, 2012

November 30, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The contract of donation concluded on February 21, 201 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “the apartment of this case”) between the Defendant and Nonparty B shall be revoked. The Defendant will implement the procedure for registration cancellation of the previous registration to Nonparty B, the ownership of which was completed as receipt No. 2510 on February 21, 2011.

1. Basic facts

A. Nonparty B is a person engaged in construction machinery contracting and leasing business under the trade name of “CCC machinery,” and was in arrears with value-added tax as indicated below.

(The following table omitted):

B. On February 21, 2011, Nonparty B entered into a gift agreement with the Defendant, the wife, on the instant apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant gift agreement”), and on February 21, 201, Jincheon District Court, Jincheon District Court (hereinafter referred to as the “instant ownership transfer registration”) concluded the ownership transfer registration in the Defendant’s future (hereinafter referred to as the “instant ownership transfer registration”).

C. At the time of the donation contract of this case, Nonparty B was the only active property of the amount equivalent to the market price of 000 won at the time of the donation contract of this case, and Nonparty B was the small property with each maximum debt amount 000 won against the National Bank of Korea established on the real estate of this case, in addition to the above delinquent debt against the Plaintiff, and the secured debt amount of 00 won.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Claims for preservation;

According to the above facts, at least the plaintiff's leB at the time of the gift contract in this case, the 2010 value-added tax claim against the non-party leB was already established, and the above claim can be the preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

The facts that the apartment of this case was the only active property of the non-party leB are as seen earlier, and the contract of this case resulted in the reduction of the whole property of the non-party leB, which is the debtor, and there was a shortage in the joint security of claims. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that it would prejudice the creditor, barring any special circumstance.

C. Determination on the defendant's good faith defense

The defendant did not know that the donation contract of this case was a fraudulent act, and did not know that the private road of the deceased was in good faith, and therefore, the defendant made a bona fide defense. Thus, the following circumstances recognized by the whole purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, and 8, and Nos. 1 and 2, and ① at the time of the donation contract of this case, the market price of the apartment of this case was approximately KRW 000, while the plaintiff's tax liability was over KRW 00, and the plaintiff's value-added tax claim against the non-party leB was over KRW 00,00, and ② the defendant donated the apartment of this case under the pretext of division of property and consolation money in consultation with the non-party leB, and ③ The defendant acquired the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the apartment of this case after the donation contract of this case, and paid interest thereon, although the defendant and the non-party leB were married, it is insufficient to conclude that the defendant's property beneficiary of this case was the non-party B.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.