The agreement on division of the inherited property of this case does not constitute a fraudulent act.

It is reasonable to view that the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary in light of the fact that one of the elderly women's husbands dies, requiring the remaining parents of the deceased to prepare for the old age by way of a separate inheritance by way of an agreement on inherited property division. Thus, the agreement on the division of inherited property does not constitute a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act (Cancellation of Fraudulent Act and Restoration to Original State)

2017 Ghana 226074 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Mack Mack

on April 24, 2018

on October 10, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

On March 6, 2017, the agreement on the division of inherited property concluded on March 6, 2017 with respect to 2/7 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet between Nonparty Park ○ and the Defendant is revoked. The Defendant will implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for 2/7 shares of each of the above real estate to Nonparty Park ○○.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From April 15, 2009 to August 31, 2011, Park ○○ engaged in the business of “△△△△△,” including the x design (number and lighting). In relation to this, the value-added tax, Class A earned income tax, global income tax, etc. for the year 2009 to 201 as indicated below are in arrears, as indicated in the following table; (b) Dobbing △△△ (hereinafter “the deceased”) is between the Defendant and the spouse, who is the spouse.

The deceased died, and the wife of the Defendant, 3/7, Dog-gu, Dog-gu, and Dog-gu, respectively, was the heir of 2/7 shares of the property.

C. On March 6, 2017, the deceased’s inheritors, including Park○, entered into an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant division agreement”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which is the deceased’s inherited property (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On March 7, 2017, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance due to the agreement division under the name of Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in the registration office of the △△△△ district court.

D. Park○-○ was holding only a claim of KRW 62,480 in addition to the inheritance shares of the instant real estate as active property at the time of the instant division agreement. Pursuant to the instant division agreement, Park○-○’s inheritance shares (2/7) regarding the instant real estate was transferred to the Defendant pursuant to the instant division agreement, and Park○-○ was in excess of the obligation.

E. Meanwhile, at the time of inheritance of the instant real estate, the market price of the instant real estate reaches KRW 359 million, and at the time of the instant division agreement, at the time of the establishment registration of a mortgage with the deceased’s debtor, the instant real estate was completed, but the sum of the maximum debt amount for the secured obligation is about KRW 116 million.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy,

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Whether a fraudulent act was committed

The agreement on division of inherited property is to confirm the reversion of inherited property by either having all or part of the inherited property owned by each inheritor as a sole ownership or having been performed as a new co-ownership relationship with respect to the inherited property which has been provisionally owned by co-inheritors upon commencement of inheritance (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51797, Feb. 9, 2001). As such, it may be subject to the exercise of the right to revoke a fraudulent act, inasmuch as it is a legal act aiming at property rights by nature (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51797, Feb. 9, 2001). Meanwhile, in cases where a debtor in excess of a debt already renounced his/her right to

In light of the above legal principles, Park○-○ renounced the inheritance shares (2/7) of the instant real estate while holding an agreement on the division of inherited property in excess of debt, and caused the Defendant to succeed to the shares, thereby reducing the joint collateral against the general creditors including the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that Park○-○ was a fraudulent act in recognition of the circumstances that the instant division agreement made between the Defendant and the Defendant may prejudice the claims of the general creditors, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

The defendant raises a defense to the effect that he was bona fide at the time of the division agreement. In light of the following circumstances, the defendant had two children under the chain of marriage with the deceased on April 27, 1969, and the deceased had been married for about 50 years until September 15, 2016. ② The defendant had resided in the above real estate since May 13, 1995, ③ The deceased had been working for the Korea Airport Corporation from January 1, 198 to September 16, 200, and thus, it seems to have been meaningful that the defendant would have been able to acquire and sell the above real estate as well as to the real estate to the extent that the deceased's share in the inheritance of the deceased's property remaining after excluding the inheritance of the deceased's share in the inheritance of 10 billion won.

3. Conclusion

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