Registration of ownership transfer of real estate donated to a child constitutes fraudulent act.

The Defendant’s argument that the substance of the above donation contract constitutes a division of property following divorce is difficult to accept in itself in this case where the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to the gift contract for children’s future reasons. Furthermore, the Defendant’s argument is that the above donation contract is a “drawing donation” and the above donation contract is null and void as it constitutes false declaration of agreement

Article 406 of the Civil Act

Ulsan District Court 2016Gadan59173

○○ State

○ ○

2017.04.12

2017.05.17

1. As to real estate listed in the separate sheet:

A. Revocation of the gift agreement entered into between the Defendant and AA 200. 0. ○, and

B. The defendant filed for registration with AA (O) in this Court and 200. 0. Receipt of this Court

The procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by ○○ is implemented.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The Plaintiff’s claims against A are as follows.

2.

In addition, the reason for the registration of the real estate in this case is "200.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.00.

there is no dispute over the fact that M&A is the only real estate of AA.

3. Special cases where a debtor donates to another person real estate which is the only property of the debtor;

Unless there exist any circumstances, a fraudulent act against a creditor becomes a fraudulent act (Supreme Court Decision 2005 delivered on October 14, 2005).

2003da60891, Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74843, Feb. 14, 2008). Such donations

If the act constitutes an objective fraudulent act, the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed.

unless it is proved that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the donation, the creditor shall, unless he proves that the donation was made.

An action may be revoked and accordingly, a claim for restitution (Supreme Court Order June 13, 2003).

Supreme Court Decision 2003Da12526 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.

4. The defendant asserts that at the time of the fraudulent act by AA, the defendant had the following property (claim).

B. Such circumstance alone makes it difficult to deny the fraudulent nature of the instant real estate.

○ Claim against BB Technology Corporation: This is based on the Defendant’s argument itself;

After the fraudulent act, 200.00.00, only the bonds have been created after the fraudulent act, and such bonds are entered.

In light of the withdrawal details, AA’s claim against BB technology is substantial.

It is a property that has no property value and can not be claimed as a joint security for claims.

○ Deposit Claim, Retirement Pension Claim, Insurance Claim, etc.: Actual claim, such as the defendant’s assertion

Even if property with value is assumed as property, the total amount of the deposit claim(=deposit claim)

○○○○ ＋ Retirement Pension ＋ ○○ ＋ Insurance Bonds ○○ ○○ , which is merely merely an insurance bond.

The property of the Plaintiff is difficult to secure the claim of the Plaintiff. Ultimately, the property is a real estate in the reasons of AA.

AA as a result of donation of the instant real property to the Defendant, was in excess of the obligation.

Clearly,

5. In the instant case, the Defendant: AA and CCC, the parent of which are the CCC, are mixed with each other;

For division of property, living expenses, and child support expenses for DD, the defendant's living

The apartment will be transferred, but CCC will dispose of the apartment of this case and will not support its children.

In preparation for the registration of transfer of ownership in this case, the defendant is bona fide.

or the gift contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act with a legitimate division of property following divorce.

I asserts that it does not take place.

However, the evidence presented by the defendant alone leads to the presumption of "the defendant's bad faith" and the defendant's death.

It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the donation contract is a bona fide beneficiary who was unaware of the fraudulent act.

of this chapter.

In addition, the registration of transfer of ownership is completed due to the gift contract for children not married.

The defendant's assertion that the substance of the above gift contract constitutes division of property following divorce.

It is difficult to accept the Defendant’s argument by itself. Moreover, the Defendant’s assertion is eventually the foregoing.

Gift contract is a donation which is called a "drawing donation", and such donation contract constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy.

return to effect. Even if a debtor's legal act is a false and false conspiracy, the creditor's right of revocation

Since it is different, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted in itself.

6. The plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of all the reasons.