Any person who has acquired a claim after a fraudulent act shall not include a creditor who has the effect of revocation of the fraudulent act and reinstatement.

A person who has acquired a claim after a fraudulent act shall not be a creditor subject to the revocation of the fraudulent act and reinstatement, and any person who has acquired a claim for revocation of the fraudulent act shall be prohibited from participating

Seoul Central District Court 2016Kadan523544 Decided distribution

Credit Guarantee Fund

Korea

April 25, 2017

May 23, 2017

1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the purport of the claim of KRW 336,640 shall be dismissed.

2. Of the distribution schedule prepared on October 6, 2016, in the case of a compulsory auction by the Seoul Central District Court 000 Ma-0000, 000 Ma-000 (Dual) for real estate, the said court shall correct the amount of 145,305,316 won to the defendant as 346,730 won, and distribute the deleted amount of 14,958,586 won to each creditor other than the defendant in proportion to the order of claims and the amount of claims of each creditor.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on October 6, 2016, in the case of a compulsory auction for real estate at the Seoul Central District Court 000 Maga 0000,000,000, the amount of dividends to the defendant is KRW 145,305,316,090, and the amount of dividends to the plaintiff is distributed to KRW 145,295,226, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In Seoul Central District Court Decision 000 Gaa Co., Ltd. and Kimzz were jointly and severally sentenced to a judgment that held that for KRW 696,00,297 and KRW 285,483,080 from March 25, 2014 to KRW 406,789,565 from April 29, 2014, the Plaintiff paid each of the delayed payment damages from the Seoul Central District Court Decision 000 Ga 0000 and the revocation of fraudulent act. In this case, the Seoul High Court Decision 000Na000,000 apartment owned by Maz was revoked on the part of the Plaintiff, and that for KRW 285,483,080 as the amount of subrogation, etc. under a credit guarantee agreement, the transfer of ownership was revoked on the part of the Plaintiff, and the transfer of ownership was revoked on the part of the Plaintiff, who completed the execution procedure of the above real estate as the transfer of ownership (beneficiary).

B. Accordingly, in the case of a compulsory auction by official auction of real estate (qq) in Seoul Central District Court 000 s.000 s.00 s.00 s.00 s.00 s.00 s.00 s.00 s.00 s.00 s.00 s. q. s.), the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule under the jurisdiction of the Defendant (U. s. 00 s. 00 s. 6 s. 2016 s. 1 and 2, 2016

C. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff, a creditor, was fully paid a dividend of KRW 145,305,316 to the Defendant.

As to the claim 110,617,59 won of the dividend amount against the defendant, an objection was raised against each of the 110,617,59 won of the dividend amount against the defendant. Since then, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on October 12, 2016 and the q filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution with the Seoul Central District Court 000Gadan000 (which is the ground for recognition) (which is the ground for recognition), the entry of Gap 1 through 10 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the part of expanding the purport of the claim of KRW 336,640 among the instant lawsuit

The plaintiff in another real estate compulsory auction case on March 21, 2017 where the defendant is in the lawsuit of this case.

2) The Defendant’s dividend amount was deleted and the Plaintiff’s dividend amount was increased. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff received 336,640 won as the holder of the issuance, the claim was extended to the effect that the amount was additionally added by the amendment of the claim on April 20, 2017.

ex officio, a lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution shall be instituted by a person who has appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection within one week from the date of distribution (Article 154(3) of the Civil Execution Act), and it is possible to expand a claim within the extent of objection made on the date of distribution prior to the expiration of the period for filing the lawsuit. However, where a claim has been expanded after the period for filing the lawsuit has expired, the court of the case at Seoul Central District Court 000Kadan000 decided March 14, 2017 in which the lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution against the defendant was filed on March 14, 2017, the effect of the extended portion is that "the amount of distribution against the defendant, 145, 305, 316 won shall be corrected as 346,640 won, and the deleted amount shall be distributed in proportion to the claims order and the amount of claims of each creditor except the defendant" (Article 14,958,676 won).

2) On March 21, 2017, the Defendant received 336,640 won out of the bonds in the instant lawsuit from a compulsory auction of 000 district court 000 Mazz00,000 Mazz ownership, and 000 Mazz ownership, which appears to have been distributed from a compulsory auction of real estate (the auction of 00 Mazz ownership, which was restored to the original state in the said judgment on revocation of the said fraudulent act).

It constitutes a lawsuit filed after the lapse of the time period. Accordingly, the lawsuit in this case is the same as above.

The part of KRW 336,640, extended to the purport of this claim, is unlawful because the period for filing the lawsuit expires.

B. Determination on the remainder of claims

1) Determination on the grounds for the claim

The obligee’s right of revocation is not included in the obligee’s right to preserve the obligor’s property for all creditors by cancelling the act where the obligor’s act of reducing his/her general property while knowing that it would prejudice the obligee, but the obligee who acquired a claim after the fraudulent act does not grasp the property restored by the revocation of the fraudulent act as the obligee’s joint security at the time of the acquisition of the claim and is subject to the effect of revocation of the fraudulent act and restitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da18502, Jun. 23, 2009).

On January 16, 2014, the facts as seen earlier are the point at which the sales contract for the above real estate was concluded, Kimz and Leex, and Lee x, as to which January 16, 2014 was concluded. Of the tax claims that the Defendant requested for delivery in the procedure for the compulsory auction of the pertinent real estate, the taxation claims, which became the statutory due date prior to the above fraudulent act, may be acknowledged pursuant to the facts that only KRW 336,640, which were the wage and salary income tax, did not conflict between the parties, or that there was no dispute between the parties, or that the facts

Therefore, even if the above real estate was restored to the debtor Kimz's responsible property in accordance with the revocation of fraudulent act and restitution, the defendant who acquired a tax claim after the fraudulent act cannot participate in the distribution of dividends with respect to a tax claim exceeding KRW 336,640.In this regard, the defendant asserted that the distribution against the defendant is justifiable, citing the legal principles as to the preserved claim of the creditor who revoked the fraudulent act in the revocation lawsuit, but the premise is different.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

(2) Repreparation of a distribution schedule;

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant (Seoul Central District Court 000Kadan000) and the said court rendered a judgment that the amount of the deleted dividend on March 14, 2017 is distributed in proportion to the creditor’s claim order and the amount of the claim except the Defendant, and it is deemed inappropriate to set the creditors entitled to receive dividends and the amount thereof in this case. Thus, it is reasonable to order the execution court to make a new distribution schedule and to take other distribution procedures in accordance with the latter part of Article 157 of the Civil Execution Act.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks a dividend amount of KRW 145,305,316 against the Defendant among the instant dividend table.

346,730 won (i.e., the above 336,640 won + additional 10,090 won). The deleted 144,958,586 won should be corrected in proportion to the order of claims and the amount of claims of each creditor, excluding the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim expansion of KRW 336,640 among the lawsuits of this case is unlawful and dismissed. The remaining claims except the dismissed part are accepted within the scope of the above recognition. The remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.