Revocation of Fraudulent Act

The joint security against general creditors was reduced by the debtor in excess of his/her share of inheritance regarding the land of this case while holding the division agreement of this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the agreement of this case constitutes a fraudulent act against other creditors.

The contents of the judgment are the same as the attachment.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2016 Ghana 536073 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

L*** Country1

April 19, 2017

May 24, 2017

1. As to shares in 2/9 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2:

A. The agreement on division of inherited property concluded on May 1, 2015 between Defendant L** and the lowest + shall be revoked.

B. The defendant best** will implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of restitution due to the revocation of fraudulent act to the least +

2. As to shares in 2/9 out of 3 real estate listed in the separate list:

A. The agreement on the division of inherited property concluded on May 1, 2015 between the defendant Choi Jong-hee and the lowest + shall be revoked.

B. Defendant Choi Jong-hee will implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of restitution due to revocation of fraudulent act to the least + (i.e., restitution).

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) The maximum + the sum of 158,027,110 won, such as capital gains tax and additional dues, shall be unpaid (the first due date for payment);

On December 31, 2011), the Plaintiff had the maximum + the claim equivalent to the amount of the unpaid tax against the Plaintiff’s maximum + (i.e., this).

under this case’s taxation claim.

나. 망 최@@은 별지 목록 기재 각 토지(이하 이 사건 각 토지라고 한다)를 소유하

The death of his or her wife *, the defendants who are his or her children and the defendants who are his or her children, the highest + each of 3:2:2

Joint inheritance was made in proportion to shares.

C. Steel*, the maximum + and the Defendants are the defendants on May 1, 2015, the sequences listed in the separate sheet among each land of this case.

1. The land 1 and 2(hereinafter referred to as the "land 1 and 2 in this case") are owned by the defendant Choi*, and the same list.

0

Defendant Choi * As to the land of this case 1 and 2, Defendant Choi Jong-hee had a consultation on division of the inherited property of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "division consultation of this case"), and as to the land of this case 3

It completes the registration of ownership transfer based on the dry-division agreement.

D. Not only at the time of the instant division consultation, but also up to now the largest + is insolvent in excess of debt.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5 (if any, numbered)

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading;

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

According to the above facts, the plaintiff had the highest + + the pertinent tax claim at the time of the division consultation in this case, and thus the above claim is the preserved claim of the obligee's right of revocation.

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

The agreement on division of inherited property is to confirm the reversion of inherited property by performing all or part of the inherited property, which is a separate ownership of each inheritor, or by performing as a new co-ownership relationship, with respect to the inherited property, which is a provisional co-inheritors upon commencement of inheritance, and therefore becomes subject to the exercise of the right to revoke a fraudulent act. Meanwhile, barring any special circumstance, the debtor's act of selling real property, which is one of his/her sole property, and replacing it with money which is easy to consume or transferring it to another person free of charge, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor, barring any special circumstance. Thus, even in cases where the debtor in excess of his/her obligation has reduced joint security against the general creditor by giving up his/her right to his/her inherited property upon consultation on division of inherited property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29

As seen earlier, the joint security for general creditors was reduced by giving up their respective shares of inheritance in respect of each land of this case while holding the division agreement of this case, the maximum + (i.e., the debtor), which has already been in excess of the debt, as seen earlier, was the debtor, and barring any special circumstance, the division agreement of this case constitutes a fraudulent act against other creditors, such as the plaintiff, etc., the maximum + + bad faith is recognized, and the Defendants’ bad faith, the beneficiary

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

1) 피고들은 먼저 망 최@@이 2005. 9.경 화성시 정남면 답 2,298㎡를 매매 형식으로 최++에게 생전 증여하였으므로, 이러한 특별수익을 고려하면 이 사건 분할협의는 사해행위에 해당하지 않는다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 을 제1, 2호증의 각 기재에 의하면 이를 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 피고들의 위 주장은 이유 없다(을 제1호증에 의하면, 최++는 전*최씨**공파종중 소유의 화성시 답 2,298㎡에 관하여 2005. 9. 12.자 매매를 원인으로 하여 2005. 9. 13. 소유권이전등기를 마친 사실이 인정될 뿐이다).

2) Next, the Defendants asserted that they are bona fide beneficiaries, and thus, bear the burden of proving the debtor's bad faith in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act. However, inasmuch as the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser bears the burden of proving that they are bad faith, it is not a creditor, but a beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is responsible to prove the fact that they are bona fide. In a case where the debtor's act of disposal of assets constitutes a fraudulent act, when recognizing that they were bona fide by the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser at the time of the fraudulent act or the subsequent purchase, it shall be based on objective and acceptable evidence, etc., and it shall not be readily concluded that the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act or the subsequent purchase (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da237192, Jun. 11, 2015), there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants constituted a bona fide beneficiary, and there is no reason to assert the above Defendants' assertion.

D. Sub-determination

Ultimately, the part corresponding to 2/9 shares, which is the maximum + statutory inheritance portion of each land of this case, should be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, among the division consultation of this case, as to the restoration to its original state, the maximum + (2/9 shares in the land of this case) the defendant * is liable to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership due to the revocation of fraudulent act with respect to the shares of 2/9 shares in the land of this case 1 and 2. (3)

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.