beta
Text
1. The contract of donation concluded on February 5, 2014 between the Defendant and B shall be revoked.
2...
Reasons
1. Establishment of a fraudulent act;
A. On August 22, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) leased KRW 553,136,100 to Denmark Property Co., Ltd. on October 30, 2013; and (b) B jointly and severally guaranteed the said obligation of Denmark Property Co., Ltd.; (b) on February 5, 2014, B donated the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”); and (c) completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on February 7, 2014.
3) The active property owned by B at the time of the instant donation agreement is real estate listed in the attached list and 1/2 shares [the amount equivalent to KRW 81,112,020 [the individual publicly notified land price x 7,080 won] out of 22913 square meters of the real estate as indicated in the attached list and the forest land C, Jincheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do. In addition, the said shares of forest land in B were set up a collateral security right with the maximum claim amount of KRW 80 million on March 6, 2013, and on March 5, 2014, the entry of a provisional attachment order was registered for the claim amount of KRW 140,79,854 (the claim amount of KRW 140,79,854). The fact that
B. According to the above facts, B appears to have been in excess of the debt, and it constitutes a fraudulent act with the knowledge that B donated the instant real estate to the Defendant, the husband, and completed the registration of ownership transfer while exceeding the debt constitutes a creditor, including the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, B’s intention to commit a fraudulent act, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to be presumed to have been the beneficiary. (2) The Defendant alleged that the instant donation contract does not constitute a fraudulent act, but did not know the fact that the instant real estate was a fraudulent act, on the ground that B was repaid on behalf of others, and as a result, the Defendant was transferred the ownership of the instant real estate in return, and thus, the instant donation contract did not constitute a fraudulent act. However, the Defendant’s assertion in good faith cannot
2. The gift contract of this case concluded by the revocation of the fraudulent act and the restoration to original state B with the defendant.