If necessary, it is reasonable to deem that a loan was granted with a different name.

The sole reason for the fact that the existing repayment of a loan was made with a remittance amount is that it constitutes a fraudulent act or that it is a joint repayment.

2016 Ghana 325341 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Kim AA et al.

May 17, 2018

June 14, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Defendant KimA and Non-Party CC (hereinafter referred to as “non-party 2”) cancel each gift agreement entered into on March 2015, 2015, and the agreement entered into on April 2015, 2015 between Defendant HaB and Non-Party HaB and the Non-Party. Defendant KimA will pay to the Plaintiff 1 XX,00,000, Defendant HaB00, and 2XB,000,000 and 5% per annum from the day following the day this decision became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

가. 소외인은 2015. 2. 17.경 OO OO구 OO동 6XX-XX 대 1XX.X㎡ 및 지상 건물을 2억 X,000만 원에 매도하고(이하 '제1 매매'라고 한다), 2015. 3. 2.경 OO OO구OO동 5XX-1XX 대 1XX.X㎡, 같은 동 5XX-1XX 대 1XX.X㎡ 및 양 지상 건물을 매매대금 3X억 원에 매도하였다(이하 '제2 매매'라고 한다).

B. The Plaintiff notified the Nonparty of capital gains tax 250, capital gains tax, capital gains tax, capital gains tax, capital gains tax, capital gains tax (X. 2015), capital gains tax, capital gains tax, 27, capital gains tax, capital gains tax, and capital gains tax, and capital gains tax (X. 2015), and capital gains tax, capital gains tax, capital gains tax, capital gains tax, and capital gains tax, capital gains tax, and capital gains tax, and capital gains tax, 250, capital gains tax, and capital gains tax, in relation to the second trade.

C. The Nonparty, on March 27, 2015, remitted KRW 1 XX,00,000 to the account under the name of Defendant KimA [the father of the Nonparty, who was the father of the Nonparty, divorced on June 16, 2015] (hereinafter referred to as “first remittance”), and remitted KRW 20,000,000 to the account under the name of Defendant JeongB [the mother of the Nonparty] on April 7, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “second remittance”); and hereinafter referred to as “the instant remittance”).

D. On the same day, the amount of the first remittance was used for the repayment of KRW 1X,00,000 for loans (hereinafter “first loan”) under the name of Defendant KimA on January 12, 2004, and KRW 1x,000,000 for loans (hereinafter “second loan”) on January 27, 2014, and the second remittance was used for the repayment of the loans under the name of Defendant PB on the same day on November 13, 2013 (hereinafter “third loan”).

E. The Nonparty was in excess of his/her liability around March 27, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 14 evidence, Eul 1, 5 through 7 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

As above, the Nonparty’s transfer of money to the Defendants, as seen above, constitutes a fraudulent act as a repayment due to donation or collusion, and even if not, the remaining balance remaining after being used to repay the debt out of the amount of the second remittance constitutes a donation and ought to be revoked.

3. Determination

Therefore, according to the following circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that each of the above remittances constitutes a fraudulent act reduced by Nonparty 2’s liability, or that there was no dispute between Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 2, or that the above funds were transferred to Defendant 10,000 won on or before and after the 200th anniversary of the above underlying facts, or that the above funds were transferred to Defendant 20, under the overall purport of evidence No. 5,11,12, or that the above funds were transferred to Defendant 10,000 won on or before and after the 200th anniversary of 200, the non-party 200 won of the above funds were donated to Defendant Kim 40, and that the non-party 20,000 won of the above funds were transferred to Defendant 20, the non-party 10,000 won of the above funds, and that the non-party 40,000 won of the loans were transferred to Defendant 20,000 won of the above funds.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.