beta
Title
If recovery is impossible in the way of returning originals due to revocation of fraudulent act, it should be claimed as compensation for value.
Summary
The gift contract constitutes a fraudulent act and is revoked. However, since the above money paid to the defendant is all consumed, and it is impossible to restore the original property by the method of returning the original property following the revocation of fraudulent act, and there is a obligation to pay compensation for delay as compensation.
Related statutes
Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act
Cases
2011 Gohap 15045 Revocation of Fraudulent Act
Plaintiff
Korea
Defendant
Gangwon A
Conclusion of Pleadings
November 14, 2012
Imposition of Judgment
November 28, 2012
Text
1. The contract of gift of KRW 000 entered into on October 11, 2006 between B and the Defendant shall be revoked.
2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.
3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim
The same shall apply to the order.
Reasons
1. Indication of claim;
The plaintiff has three tax claims against the B, and the amount in arrears as of October 201 shall be as follows:
(Ommission of Default omitted)
Around 2003, AB acquired 000 m2,000 OOO2, 000 m2,8885 m2 under the name of another person, and sold the above real estate, and on October 11, 2006, donated 000 m2 paid as the above purchase price to the Defendant, the mother, who was the mother. At the time HBB donated money to the Defendant, the active property of HBB was KRW 000,00, and the negative property was equivalent to each of the above taxation claims amount. The HB transferred money to the Defendant. As such, the above donation to the Defendant of HB was found to fall under a fraudulent act. Accordingly, HB was aware that at the time of the donation to the Defendant, it would result in reduction of the common creditors’ joint security due to the donation to the Defendant, and the Defendant was presumed to have been aware of the Defendant’s bad faith, which is the beneficiary. Accordingly, since HB and the Defendant’s obligation to recover the amount calculated by the aforementioned fraudulent act to the Defendant.
2. Judgment by public notice;
Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act