a fraudulent act against creditors as an act of undermining creditors' joint security.

Unless there are special circumstances, an act resulting in excess of the obligation by a sales contract is presumed to be a fraudulent act against the obligee as an act detrimental to the obligor's joint security, and an obligor's intent to commit a fraudulent act may be ratified, and as long as the obligor's intent to commit an intentional act

2012 Ghana 201964 Revocation of fraudulent act

Korea

XX

November 1, 2012

December 13, 2012

1. The sales contract concluded on March 10, 201 with respect to the real estate in the separate sheet between the Defendant and Nonparty A shall be revoked within the limit of 000 won.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff had a claim for value-added tax amounting to 000 won of the value-added tax for the year 2008, which was until March 31, 2011, for the maximumA as of March 10, 2011, against the Plaintiff. However, the said claim for taxation remains in KRW 00 as of February 29, 2012.

B. On March 10, 2011, the LA entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant, who is a convict, on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the said sale as the receipt No. 21193 of the Seoul Northern District Court’s receipt on April 1, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Establishment of fraudulent act

(1) As of the time of the instant sales contract between the AA and the Defendant, comprehensively taking account of each of the evidence and evidence set forth in the evidence set forth above, and evidence set forth in Nos. 2 through 9, No. 1, 2, and 3 (including each natural disaster) as to the maximumA’s active and passive property as of the time of the instant sales contract between the Defendant, the facts as follows can be acknowledged:

(a)affirmative property;

① The sales price of March 18, 201 (registration March 30, 201) (i.e., KRW 000 KRW x1/2) was 000,000,000,000 won (= KRW 000 KRW x1/2,00)

② Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Northern-gu 391-292 x 402 x 402 x 28 February 2011 (registration of March 22, 2011) sales amount of KRW 000

(3) Seoul Central ditch-gu 178-3 No. 2 of the basement level: 000 won (registration price on March 25, 2011) from March 9, 2011.

④ The right to refund the lease deposit, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, XX 273, XX apartment 611, 504: 00 won

(5) Stocks of a stock company: 000 won.

6. The real estate of this case: Sale price of 000 won

(7) Total amount: 00 won.

(B) Petty property

① The above (i) KRW 000 (as the debtor against the National Bank Co., Ltd., the mortgagee on the right to collateral security on the registry entered only the largestA, all of which appears to be the debt of the lowestA) and the obligation to return the lease deposit (=00 KRW x1/2).

(2) Loans to real estate shall be KRW 000 and KRW 000,000,000.

(3) The obligation to return the lease deposit for the above real estate (3) shall be 000 won.

④ The above tax liability against the plaintiff: 000 won (Evidence A2)

⑤ Loans to the instant real estate amounting to KRW 000 and KRW 000,000,000

(6) Total amount: 00 won

(2) Sub-determination

Since a fraudulent act refers to an act detrimental to the creditor by reducing active property, or deepening the fact that the debtor has already been in excess of his/her obligation by increasing his/her negative property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da61618, Jan. 15, 2009). Therefore, if the sales contract in this case leads to the situation where the least AA is in excess of his/her obligation, or where it furthers the situation where it has already been in excess of its obligation, then the fraudulent act

On the other hand, as at the time of the instant sales contract, the largestA’s active property was KRW 000,000, but the largestA had reduced active property due to the instant sales contract, thereby resulting in excess of the obligation. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the act that the largestA made the Defendant in excess of the obligation under the instant sales contract with the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, which is the obligee, as an act detrimental to the creditors’ joint security of the most AA, and it can be presumed that the Defendant’s bad faith, the beneficiary, as long as the obligor’s intent is recognized.

B. The defendant's defense and judgment

In regard to this, the defendant, without knowledge of the leastA's excess of debt, made the purchase of the real estate in this case as a product, and made no purchaser, and made the purchase, and made 000 won for the brokerage of YY Licensed Real Estate Agent (=00 won for down payment + an intermediate payment of 000 won + an acquisition of the lease deposit obligation of the tenant + an obligation of 000 won + an obligation of the loan + an remainder of 000 won). The defendant paid 00 won for the down payment and the remainder, and paid 00 won to the broker, and completed the rooftop waterproof work, and thus, the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary.

In light of the above evidence, the defendant is the punishment of the leastA, and the most AA sells three real estate continuously during about 1 month from February 28, 201 to February 28, 201 at the time of the sales contract of this case, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the defendant's defense cannot be accepted.

(c) Methods of reinstatement;

(1) According to the aforementioned evidence, it can be acknowledged that the right to collateral security of the Seoul Gyeonggi-do Livestock Cooperatives, which was established on the instant real estate prior to the instant fraudulent act, was cancelled on April 11, 201, after the instant contract was concluded. As such, it constitutes either impossible or considerably difficult to return originals, and thus, the value of the instant real estate should be revoked within the extent of the balance remaining after deducting the secured amount at the time of the fraudulent act from the value of the instant real estate, and the amount of the creditor’s claim, and the compensation for

(2) Furthermore, with respect to the scope of compensation for value, the market price of the instant real estate at the time of the instant sales contract is 000 won as seen earlier, and the subsequent value is confirmed to be the same amount. The actual secured amount of the instant secured claim is 000, as seen earlier, also the fact that the actual secured amount of the instant secured claim is 000. As seen earlier, 000 won (=00 won -00 won) calculated by deducting the secured amount of the instant secured claim at the time of the instant secured claim from the value of the instant real estate exceeds the Plaintiff’s claim amount

Therefore, the sales contract of this case shall be revoked within the scope of 000 won as the plaintiff seeks, and the defendant shall be liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 000 won as compensation for value and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from the day after the day when the judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day when the payment is made.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for all reasons and it is decided as per Disposition.