The sales contract of real estate sold in excess of liabilities must be revoked by fraudulent act.

The sales contract in which the debtor, who had been in excess of the debt due to the default of corporate tax, sold real estate to the business members, etc., constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditor, and the debtor is presumed to be detrimental to the general creditor.

2012 Written Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

KimAAAA et al.

May 16, 2013

May 30, 2013

A. Defendant KimAAA’s sales contract concluded on May 13, 201 with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the separate sheet between Defendant KimA, and

B. Defendant KimAAA’s sales contract concluded on May 24, 201 with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the separate sheet within the limit of KRW 000, and

C. The sales contract concluded on May 13, 201 with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (3) of the Attached List No. 3 between Defendant BBB case, shall be within the limit of 000 won, and each revocation shall be made.

2. (a) Defendant KimAA implements the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 7628 of the receipt on May 13, 2011 with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list toCC Co., Ltd.

B. Defendant KimAA shall pay to the Plaintiff 000 won and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

C. Defendant BBB case shall pay to the Plaintiff 000 won and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case is finalized to the day of complete payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant KimA are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant KimAA is ten minutes, and one of them is the Plaintiff, and the remainder is the Defendant, respectively, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant BBB earth is the Plaintiff and the Defendant BB earth.

The sales contract concluded on May 24, 201 with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table Nos. 1-A, (c), (c), and (c) and the defendant KimAA with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 1-A, shall be revoked in one Do, and the defendant KimAA shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 000 and its amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the date the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 2, 2011, the director of the tax office in the Republic of Korea, under the Plaintiff’s control, notified the Plaintiff to pay KRW 000,000 of the corporate tax due to the revision of the corporate tax base and tax amount for the business year 2010 toCC (hereinafter “CC”) by May 31, 201. As of February 2, 2012, on the date of the lawsuit,CC defaulted the Plaintiff with corporate tax of KRW 000,000 as indicated in the attached Table.

B. On May 13, 2011,CC sold to Defendant KimAA the real estate listed in the separate list No. 1, and on the same day, completed the registration of transfer of ownership to Defendant KimA as the receipt No. 7628 on May 13, 201.

C. On May 24, 2011,CC sold to Defendant KimAA the real estate listed in [Attachment List 2] to Defendant KimA on KRW 000, and on the same day, Defendant KimA had completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the said real estate as the receipt of No. 22921 on May 24, 2011.

D. On May 13, 2011,CC sold real estate listed in paragraph 3 of the attached list to Defendant BBBto Co., Ltd. at KRW 000, and on the same day, it completed the registration of transfer of ownership on May 13, 201 to Defendant BBtop Co., Ltd. as the receipt No. 7629 on the above real estate.

E. On May 13, 2011 and May 24, 2011, at the time of the purchase and sale contract as described in the foregoing paragraph (b) and (d) above (c), theCC did not have any particular property other than each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the amount of delinquent corporate tax stated in the foregoing paragraph (a) exceeds the value of each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 14, and evidence 17 to 22, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to whether a fraudulent act was committed

A. According to the above facts, the sales contract for each real estate listed in the separate list ofCC and the Defendants, which had been in excess of obligations, was aware that the sales contract for each real estate listed in the separate list of the Defendants was detrimental to the fraudulent act detrimental to general creditors, andCC, which is the debtor, would thereby prejudice general creditors, and the Defendants’ bad faith, which is the beneficiary, is presumed.

B. The Defendants asserted that the 2nd 0th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 201 6th 7th 2017 208th 2017.

3. Methods of reinstatement;

A. As to the real estate stated in Attached List No. 1

On May 13, 2011, the sales contract concluded between theCC and the defendant KimAA on the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the annexed list must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant KimAA has a duty to implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on May 13, 201 with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the annexed list to the OOO on its original state.

B. According to Article 406(1) of the Civil Act with respect to real estate listed in the separate list No. 2, the creditor's revocation and recovery claim is recognized, and the beneficiary has the obligation to return the object of the fraudulent act to the debtor, and where it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the original property, the performance of the duty to restore the original property shall compensate for the equivalent amount to the value of the object of the fraudulent act, and where it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the original property, this refers to cases where the return of the original property is not simply absolute and physical impossible, but it is impossible to expect the realization of the implementation due to social experience rules or transaction concept (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da18218, Jul. 12, 2007). Accordingly, according to the empirical rule No. 10, in light of the whole purport of arguments, the defendant KimD's ownership transfer registration should be recognized to some of the above real estate acquired from the plaintiff's 201Na371, and the above list No.28137.

In addition, since the scope of revocation of a fraudulent act is limited to the extent necessary and sufficient to preserve the property liable, in principle, the right to cancel the contract is not exercised beyond the amount of claims secured by the creditor (Supreme Court Decision 2000Da63912 Decided April 12, 2002), and on the other hand, the scope of revocation of a fraudulent act and compensation for value shall be limited to the smaller amount between the joint collateral value of the property which is the object of the fraudulent act and the total amount of claims secured by the creditor, and the equivalent amount shall be calculated as at the time of the conclusion of the fact-finding proceedings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da33734, Dec. 27, 2001). Accordingly, the list of claims secured by the defendant 20, which is recorded in the separate list 200, and the amount of claims secured by the defendant 200, which is recorded in the separate list 300,000,000 won at the time of sale of the real property shall be established.

C. As to the real estate stated in Attached List No. 3

Since the purchase and sale contract for the real estate listed in the separate list No. 3 is revoked and restored to the original state, comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the arguments set forth in the list No. 5, and the real estate set forth in the separate list No. 40/B, the plaintiff may obtain 00 won for the establishment of a mortgage betweenCC and the defendant BB case on March 16, 2012, and the third party may obtain 300 won for the establishment of a mortgage and superficies set forth in the separate list No. 40/B of the above list No. 30, the amount of the debt set forth in the separate list No. 400, and the remaining amount of the debt set forth in the separate list No. 30, which is the object of the mortgage set forth in the separate list No. 5, and the amount of the debt set forth in the separate list No. 30, which is the object of the mortgage set forth in the separate list No. 30, the creditor may seek 300,000 won for the damages set out the list No.

D. Sub-determination

(1) Accordingly, the sales contract concluded on May 13, 201 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate list No. 1 byCC and Defendant KimAA on May 13, 201 should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and accordingly, Defendant KimOO has the obligation to implement the procedure for registration cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on May 13, 201 with respect to the said real estate by the Chuncheon District Court Seocheon-si Registry as the receipt No. 7628 of May 13, 201.

(2) In addition, the sales contract concluded on May 24, 201 with the Defendant KimAA on the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached list with the Defendant KimA on May 24, 201 shall be revoked within the limit of 00 won, and the Defendant KimAA is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay due to the amount of 5% per annum as provided by the Civil Act from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

(3) In addition, the sales contract concluded on May 13, 201 with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (3) of [Attachment List BB Land Co., Ltd. and CC on May 13, 201 shall be revoked within the limit of 000 won, and Defendant BBB Land Co., Ltd. shall be liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as provided by the Civil Act from the day following the date of the conclusion of the judgment in this case to the day of full

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant KimA is reasonable within the above recognition scope, and the defendant's claim against the defendant KimAB case against the defendant Kim Dong is justified, and the remaining claim against the defendant KimA is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.