The agreement on division of inherited property can not be considered as a fraudulent act.

Property division result cannot be deemed to have been less than the degree corresponding to a specific share of inheritance, so it cannot be deemed to have been revoked as a fraudulent act.

§ 404. Revocation of fraudulent act

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Gahap502311 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

§ 1 to 6 Inheritances, Defendant D and GG, respectively, shall succeed to the property of succession of this title 7.

The agreement on the division of inherited property of this case was made with the content of acquiring shares 1/2. Accordingly, the award of this case

The agreement on the division of property is a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is a tax claim of BB, so the agreement must be revoked.

to the extent of the share of inheritance BB due to the restitution by fraudulent act, the defendant; and

Re-transmission shall return the originals to the inherited property of this case, and dispose of it to another person.

In the case of the 2 to 6 inherited property of this case where the return of the original properties became impossible, compensation for value shall be made for the 2 to 6 inherited property

Defendant D and GG also dispose of another person, making it impossible to return originals.

The value of the 7th inherited real estate of this case shall be compensated for each value.

Accordingly, DefendantCC’s share 2/11 of the inherited real estate of this case to BB

subject to the registration of ownership transfer due to the cancellation of such fraudulent act;

The Plaintiff totaling KRW 96,846,054,054,000,000,000

Defendant D and GG shall pay to the Plaintiff, as to the inherited property of this case 7

68,557,743 won shall be paid as compensation for value.

2) The Defendants

BB from the Deceased’s business fund-raising KRW 400 million around 1999, and KRW 135,000,000 around 2012.

B. The agreement on the division of inherited property of this case was made in consideration of the above special benefits of BB, and thus does not constitute a fraudulent act.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

The agreement on division of inherited property shall have commenced and become a provisional co-inheritors

With respect to inherited property, all or any part of such property shall be sole or new owned by each inheritor

The reversion of the inherited property shall be confirmed by implementing the relation, and property rights in its nature shall be secured;

Since it is a juristic act done in a way that is intended to exercise the right to revoke a fraudulent act (Supreme Court Decision 2007.

7. Assets inherited by a debtor in excess of his/her liability, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119, Feb. 26, 2

by giving up the rights to inherited property in consultation on the division of property, which results in general claims.

Even if the joint security against such person has been reduced, the result of the division of property is equivalent to the specific share of inheritance.

be revoked as a fraudulent act unless it is deemed that it is less than the extent to which it is reasonable.

(2) If the property falls short of the limit of the specific share of inheritance, such property shall not be subject to

The scope of cancellation as above must be limited to the deficient part. In this case, the designated inheritance portion or

An obligation that differs from a statutory share of inheritance, such as the entitlement to a contributory portion, existence of special benefits, etc.

A person must assert and prove (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51797, Feb. 9, 2001).

2) Determination as to the specific shares of BB’s share of inheritance

In light of the above legal principles, the agreement on division of inherited property of this case falls short of BB’s specific share of inheritance

We examine whether or not it is too small.

A) The heir and the statutory share of inheritance

As seen earlier, the Defendants and BB are co-inheritorss of the deceased, and their legal portion of inheritance.

J, the spouse of J, 3/11, BB, and Defendants, respectively.

B) The deceased’s inherited property

At the time of the deceased’s death, the inheritance real estate of this case was inherited as the inherited property above.

on the other hand, on the basis of the officially announced price, standard market price, etc. in 2013, which is significant to this court

With respect to the value of the above inherited property as shown in the attached Form 3, a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants

It is confirmed that the total value of these real estate is equal at the time of the agreement on the division of the inherited property in this case.

(C) existence and value of the special benefit of BB;

Section 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 13 of the evidence and the purport of the whole oral proceedings 1

On December 30, 1999, the establishment registration was completed with respect to the deceased's land and building 107-3, o-dong 107-2,00 won, the maximum debt amount of 520,000 won, the debtorCC and the JH bank. The defendantCC borrowed KRW 391,676,684 from JH bank based on the above establishment registration, and granted KRW 391,50,000 among them to ADS corporation for the repayment of the attempted amount of goods. The deceased completed additional registration with respect to the above right to collateral security on March 16, 200 to change the debtor of the above right to collateral security on the ground of the contract acquisition by 200,000 won to the deceased, 200,000 won, 391,50,000 won, 1,000,000 won, 1,000,000 won and 2,01,000,00 won, GH1.

According to the above facts of recognition, the deceased provided a physical security for loans of KRW 391,50,000 paid to ADS corporation for B B around the end of December 1999, and acquired the above loans on March 16, 200, and therefore, it is reasonable to view the above KRW 391,50,000 as a special benefit from the deceased. Furthermore, the deceased provided a physical security for BB on September 2, 2008.

The land provided as security on June 27, 2012 after the physical security for the loan of KRW 10 million was provided.

Since the above loans have been repaid with the sold money, the above KRW 110 million also shall be the deceased.

From this point, special benefits should be considered to have been made.

Meanwhile, in calculating a specific share of inheritance of an inheritor in consideration of such special benefits, it shall be based on the evaluation of inherited property and special benefits property at the time of commencement of inheritance (see Supreme Court Order 96S62, Mar. 21, 1997). Therefore, if the property with special benefits is money, it is reasonable to deem that the amount of special benefits is converted into the monetary value at the time of commencement of inheritance to the monetary value at the time of commencement of inheritance. Such conversion of monetary value is reasonable to calculate by reflecting the rate of price fluctuation between the time of commencement of inheritance and the time of commencement of inheritance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da28126 Decided July 23, 2009). In addition, the conversion criteria are reasonable to use GDP displays, which appears to best reflect the fluctuation in the price level of the entire economy. As such, the monetary value at the time of the commencement of inheritance of the purchase price donated by the Defendant, at the time of the commencement of inheritance, should be calculated as the “DP displays at the time of death of the amount of special profit-making property 】 (DP display value at the time of death of the special profit-making property)”.

Accordingly, if BB calculates the value of cash received from the deceased, ① the value of KRW 450,00,000 (=391,500,000 + 203.5/1999, 76.6, 199; hereinafter the same shall apply) that was received at the end of December 199 is 528,984,986 won (=391,50,000 won).

(2) The value of KRW 110,000,00,000, earnings accrued from September 2, 2008, shall be 121,634,615 (=110,000,000 x GDPR 103.5/2008, 2008).

(d)the calculation of specific shares of inheritance BB;

Inheritance deemed as the aggregate amount of the deceased’s inherited property and the special profits of co-inheritors mentioned above.

The property is calculated, and each statutory share of inheritance is calculated by multiplying the statutory share of co-inheritors by the statutory share of inheritance. In other words, if the specific share of inheritance of the co-inheritors is calculated by deducting special profits and calculating the specific share of inheritance of the co-inheritors, it is recognized that the specific share of the BB share of inheritance is less than the statutory share of inheritance according to the deemed inherited property as follows, and ultimately, the specific share of inheritance of the BB remains.

○ Deemed Inherited Property: KRW 1,272,735,386,00 (=the aggregate value of the deceased’s inherited property)

+B Total 650,619,601 Won2)

○ Amount of statutory inheritance of BB: 349,70,906 won (=1,923,354,987 won of the inherited property deemed to be inherited) 】 249,700,906

2/11 of the statutory inheritance of

○ Specific shares of inheritance by BB: 0 won (legal shares of inheritance 349,700,906 - Special proceeds)

650,619,601 won (0), so specific shares in BB do not remain)

2) BB’s ① Partial Special Profits of KRW 528,984,986 +B. ② Partial Special Profits of KRW 121,634,615

3) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, considering that there is no specific share of inheritance BB, the result of division of property is the same.

(B) is not deemed to have less than the extent equivalent to the specific share of the B.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the agreement on division of inherited property of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is without merit without further review.

All these are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Korea

AA and 2

October 26, 2017

November 9, 2017

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

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

the purport of the Office

The agreement on the division of inherited property concluded on March 18, 2013 with respect to 2/11 shares in each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 list between the Defendants and BB shall be revoked. DefendantCC shall implement to BB the procedure for the registration of the transfer of ownership due to the revocation of fraudulent act with respect to the share No. 2/11 shares in the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and shall pay to the Plaintiff 96,846,054 won and the interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment. Defendant D and GG shall pay to each Plaintiff 68,57,743 won and the interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

A. Plaintiff’s establishment of tax claims against BB

The director of the Gyeonggi-do Tax Office under the Plaintiff imposed taxes of KRW 1,008,965,840 on B from around March 208 to March 18, 2013, including value-added tax, global income tax, wage and salary income tax, and corporate tax. (b) The Defendants and BB agreed on the division of inherited property.

1) BB and the Defendants’ father H died on March 18, 2013. Thereafter, on August 20, 2013, the spouse J, the children BB, and the Defendants agreed on the division of inherited property as follows with respect to the deceased’s inherited property, including the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant inherited property”) on August 20, 2013 in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “the instant inherited property”).

2) Afterwards, the Defendants completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the division of inherited property of this case as indicated below with respect to the inherited property of this case.

3) Around October 16, 2013, Defendant DD paid KRW 100 million to BB in cash. BB did not have any particular positive property at the time of the instant agreement on the division of the inherited property. However, the passive property was in excess of the obligation amounting to KRW 1,008,965,840 only for the Plaintiff’s taxation claim as seen earlier. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, each entry of Party A’s 1 through 7, Evidence Nos. 1 and 8 (including each serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings;

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff

The Plaintiff acquired a tax claim against BB, and the BB, in excess of the debt, waives his right to his share of inheritance among the inherited property of this case, and the DefendantCC did so.