Whether it is subject to revocation of fraudulent act

Under the circumstances of excess of debt, the waiver of rights to the inheritance shares among each of the real estate of this case, which is the substantially only one of its own property, constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, who is the creditor, unless there are special circumstances.

Civil Procedure Act

Seoul Southern District Court 2016 Ghana 239158

Korea

fixed**

on 01 October 01, 201

on 06 October 2017

1. As to shares 2/7 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. Revocation of each agreement on the division of inherited property concluded between the Defendant and Kanga on October 1, 2015, and:

B. The Defendant shall comply with the procedure for registration of cancellation of each transfer of ownership, which was completed on October 22, 2015 by the Seoul Southern District Court’s registration office (Seoul Southern District Court) and completed on October 22, 2015.

1) A certified copy of the registry of each of the above real estate stated the grounds for registration as the inheritance by consultation and division on September 1, 2015, but this merely reflects the effect of the agreement on division of inherited property as of October 19, 2015, which was the commencement date of inheritance, retroactively to September 1, 2015, which was the commencement date of inheritance.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 25, 2016, the date for filing the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff has a total of KRW 890,538,870 on the tax claim of KRW 890,538,870, which is the date for filing the instant lawsuit. The details are as follows.

Tax credits of 208-06-06-01, 208-30, 208-1, 2008-6-306-30, 210, 575, 860, 208, individual consumption tax of 2008-07, 208-208-307, 208-207, 208-308-1, 207, 208-7, 208-1, 207, 208-1, 207, 208-4, 207, 208-1, 207, 307, 208-1, 207, 308-1, 207, 308-1, 207, 208-1, 307, 208-1, 208-1, 208-1, 28-1, 207

B. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “each real estate of this case”) is the real estate owned by Kangba, which is originally owned by Kangba, and Kangba, who died on September 1, 2015, the Defendant and his/her children, who were his/her spouse, inherited according to their respective inheritance shares (Defendant 3/7, lecturea, and Kang Cc, 2/7), but the said inheritor, on October 19, 2015, entered into an agreement on division of inherited property (hereinafter referred to as the “instant division agreement”) with the purport that the Defendant is to own each of the real estate of this case solely, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant as of October 22, 2015, which was received on October 22, 2015 by the Seoul Southern District Court, the registration office of the Seoul Southern District Court.

C. The Kanga did not have any property other than each of the instant real property at the time of the split-off consultation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 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 was provisionally owned by each inheritor, as the sole ownership of each inheritor, or as a new co-ownership relationship, and therefore, it is the legal act aiming at property rights in its nature. Therefore, a fraudulent act against a creditor, barring special circumstances, inasmuch as the debtor's act of selling and consuming real property, which is one of his sole property, or of transferring it to another person without compensation, becomes a fraudulent act against a creditor, barring any special circumstances. Thus, even in cases where a debtor in excess of his/her obligation has reduced joint security against a general creditor by giving up his/her right to the inherited property upon consultation on the division of inherited property, it constitutes a fraudulent act against a creditor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 2007).

B. In addition, in cases where a debtor's act of disposal of property against a third party constitutes a fraudulent act subject to creditor's right of revocation, the beneficiary's malicious act is presumed to have been committed. Thus, unless the beneficiary proves that he had acted in good faith at the time of the juristic act, the creditor may cancel the juristic act and claim restitution (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da12526, Jun. 13, 2003). There is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant, the beneficiary, had acted in good faith at the time of the instant division agreement. Accordingly, the instant division agreement concluded on Oct. 19, 2015, which was concluded on Oct. 19, 2015 with regard to the 2/7 shares of each of the instant real estate, among each of the instant real estate, constitutes a fraudulent act, and the defendant has the obligation to cancel the division agreement and to complete the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration with respect to the 2/7 shares of each of the instant real estate to Gangnam District Court of Seoul, Seoul.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.