Whether cash transfers can be viewed as a fraudulent act

Since there is no evidence to deem that the debtor had an excessive ecological structure around October 30 of the same year after September 25, 2003, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Article 406 of the Civil Code, Right of Revocation

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Each contract of donation concluded on September 25, 2003 between ○○○ and Defendant Kim○○ and the contract of donation concluded on September 25, 2003 between ○○○ and Defendant Kim○○○ and the contract of donation concluded on September 25, 2003 shall be revoked. The Plaintiff, Defendant Kim○○, and Defendant Kim○○, shall pay each of the Plaintiff the amount of 74,000,000 won out of each of the above money with Defendant Kim○ and each of the above money and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final to the day when the payment is complete.

1.Basics

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4, evidence No. 2-1 through 3, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 4.5, evidence No. 6, and evidence No. 7, evidence No. 8-1 through 3, evidence No. 9, 10, evidence No. 1-1 through 3, evidence No. 2-2, 4, and 5, respectively.

A. A. Around September 6, 1999, the head of ○○ purchases ○○-do ○○○-do 62-2 forest land of 11,901 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest land and land”) at KRW 545 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of ○○ on November 8, 199.

B. On September 22, 1999, Defendant Kim ○, a wife of ○○○○○○, deposited 3.4.2 million won into the ○○ account in the name of ○○○○○○○○’s wife Kim ○○, and 5.6 million won into the same account on October 28 of the same year. Defendant Kim Kim Kim Kim Kim’s wife deposited 7 million won into the same account on November 22, 1999.

C. On September 21, 1999, Defendant Kim○, the wife of ○○○○, deposited KRW 840,000 in the above account, and KRW 1.5 million in the above account on the 17th day of the same month. Defendant Kim○○ deposited KRW 1.5 million in the above account on November 4, 1999.

D. On August 26, 2003, ○○○○ Industry (hereinafter “○○ Industry”) sold the forest land of this case to KRW 1.25 billion (hereinafter “the instant trade”). The instant forest land was paid 200 million on the same day from ○ Industry, and the intermediate payment was paid 300 million won on September 16, 200, and the remainder of KRW 75 million was paid on October 21, 2003.

E. On October 27, 2003, 2003, ○○○ received full payment from the ○ industry, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of ○○ industry, and reported the transfer income tax on December 30 of the same year.

F. On September 25, 2003, the head of ○○○ deposited 5 million won with the account of ○○○ branch in the name of Defendant Kim○○ bank, and 98 million won with the said account on October 30 of the same year. On September 25, 2003, the head of ○○○ deposited 25 million won with the account of ○○ branch in the name of Defendant Kim○○, and deposited 49 million won with the said account on October 30 of the same year.

G. On February 5, 2004, the director of ○○ Tax Office under the Plaintiff-affiliated Tax Office notified ○○○ of the payment of capital gains tax of KRW 115,338,550 by February 29, 2004 for the instant transaction.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The parties' assertion

On August 26, 2003, the Plaintiff: (a) sold the instant forest on August 26, 2003, thereby forming the basis for establishing the Plaintiff’s tax claim; (b) in fact, upon receiving the balance on October 21 of the same year and completing the registration of ownership transfer on October 27 of the same month, and thereby establishing a claim of capital gains tax equivalent to KRW 115,338,550 against the Plaintiff’s head of the Plaintiff; (c) the Plaintiff, including additional dues of KRW 33,909,470, has a tax claim amounting to KRW 149,248,020 against the head of the Plaintiff; and (d) on October 30 of the same year as of September 25, 2003, the head of the Plaintiff exceeded the obligation to pay KRW 148 million to the Defendants on September 30, 2003, the Defendants revoked each gift contract; and (d) the Defendants asserted that they are liable to pay interest on KRW 148 million and interest thereon.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that at the time ○○ purchases the forest of this case, ○○○, Defendant Kim○, Defendant Kim○, and Defendant Kim○○ lent an amount equivalent to KRW 97.2 million to 5 million. After selling the forest of this case, ○○○○ sold the forest of this case, he paid KRW 148 million to Defendant Kim○○ and KRW 7.4 million to Defendant Kim○○.

B. Determination

The act of damaging the creditor who is the object of the creditor's right of revocation refers to a juristic act for the purpose of property right, which means that the creditor's passive property exceeds active property or lacks debts. Thus, it is a question as to whether ○○ is in excess of debts at the time of paying each of the above money to the defendants.

In light of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 7, 9, and 10, 000 won, ○○○○○ had no other property besides the forest of this case; ○○○○○ was responsible for each monetary obligation equivalent to 15 million won against ○○○○ and ○○○○○○; on August 8, 2000, ○○○ was changed to KRW 34 million with respect to the forest of this case by ○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, and 100,000 won (the total amount was changed to KRW 42 billion on April 12, 203; ○○○○, 200,000 won on October 21, 2003, the remaining amount of money was paid to the Defendants on 200,000 won.

Therefore, there is no evidence to deem that ○○○ was in excess of the obligation around October 30 of the same year after September 25, 2003, and there is no evidence to deem that ○○○ was in excess of the obligation. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is unnecessary to further examine whether ○○○ donated money to the Defendants or paid off the money is groundless (in addition, there is no evidence to support that ○○○ was a donation to the Defendants).

3. Conclusion

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