If a debtor donates his/her own property to another person while in excess of his/her obligation, such act would constitute a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances.

If a debtor donated his/her own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, such act would constitute a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances, and since the debtor donated the instant property in excess of his/her obligation, it would constitute a fraudulent act.

Article 487 (latter part) of the Civil Act, Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act

2015 Ghana 535622 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

○ ○

October 13, 2016

October 27, 2016

1. The agreement on the gift made on April 29, 2015 between the defendant and Kim○○ shall be revoked.

2. On May 4, 2015, the Defendant implemented the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration, which was completed by the receipt No. 34533 on the real estate listed in the separate sheet to Kim○○○, the Seoul Southern District Court Gangseo-gu Office of Registry of the Seoul Southern District Court.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Basic facts

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 18 (including additional numbers) and the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. After giving notice of pre-announcement of taxation around March 16, 2015 to Kim ○○, the Plaintiff paid KRW 86,103,030 of the capital gains tax for the year to which it reverts on or around May 14, 2015, up to June 10, 2015; and after giving notice of pre-announcement of taxation on or around March 17, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the payment of KRW 130,059,190 of the capital gains tax for the year to which it reverts on or around June 10, 2015, until June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 130,059,190 by June 30, 2015, but Kim○ did not pay it. (b) Kim ○ concluded a donation agreement with the Defendant, which is one of his children’s real estate in the list of the real estate in question, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Seoul District Court 2535.35.4.

(a) Right to be preserved;

The obligation to pay income tax pursuant to Article 21(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is established when the taxable period ends, and the taxable period of income tax pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Income Tax Act is one year from January 1 to December 31, 201. According to the above recognized facts, the obligation to pay capital gains tax of 86,103,030 won to the plaintiff of Kim○○ was established on December 31, 2009, and the obligation to pay capital gains tax of 130,059,190 won was established on December 31, 2011. Accordingly, each of the above obligation to pay capital gains tax becomes a fraudulent act, claiming that the gift of this case that was made on April 29, 2015 is a fraudulent act, and thus, it becomes a right to be preserved in this case.

If a debtor donated his/her own property to another person in excess of his/her obligation, such act constitutes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da41575, Oct. 27, 2014). According to the above basic facts, Kim○ was a gift of this case in excess of his/her obligation, and thus, it constitutes a fraudulent act. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the instant real property was purchased under the name of his/her mother Kim○○, and is practically owned by himself/herself, and the instant gift was recovered from real estate held in title trust as above, and thus does not constitute a fraudulent act.

On the other hand, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion even if all the evidence presented by the defendant was taken together, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the above argument by the defendant is difficult to accept.

Therefore, since the gift of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, the gift of this case is revoked, and the defendant is obligated to conduct the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on May 4, 2015 by the Seoul Southern District Court's Gangseo-gu Office of Registry of the Seoul Southern District Court on the real estate of this case, and the defendant is obligated to conduct the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.