The lawsuit shall be dismissed in all of the claims for confirmation of the authenticity of the deed, for revocation of the fraudulent act, and for payment of money.

The lawsuit shall be dismissed in all of the claims for confirmation of the authenticity of the deed, for revocation of the fraudulent act, and for payment of money.

Article 406 of the Civil Act: Creditor's Right to Revocation

207 Gohap 53735 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

(Appointed Party)

KimAAA

BBB et al.

May 9, 2013

June 10, 2013

1. All of the lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) against the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

"The primary claims": 1. The defendants confirm that the Daejeon District Court Order 2006 Sejong District Court Order 2006 Ma○00 and each related document (illegal document, etc.) evidencing the title of the application is invalid against the plaintiff and the defendant's Republic of Korea, which was prepared for the purpose of infringing upon the rights of the plaintiff (the appointed party, the designated party, and the plaintiff together with the plaintiff) by means of Dong administration, mother's, deception, etc.; 2. The defendants jointly pay 6% per annum to the plaintiffs and the copies of the complaint from January 31, 2006 to the date of delivery of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum to the following day.

3. The Defendants jointly and severally remove three tax invoices in the name of Defendant BBB, Co., Ltd. on December 2000 and April 2005, equivalent to the amount of value-added tax of KRW 000 and the amount of value-added tax, and accordingly, the obligation to submit a revised tax invoice under Defendant BB in the name of Defendant BBD (the list of tax invoices), a revised tax invoice, and a written decision on the correction, and a receipt under the name of 0D, the name of the head of YD, the name of the head of YO, the head of YO, and the receipt (or the certificate of goods delivery) will be returned to the Plaintiff.

4. Defendant BBB, and Korea shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiffs 000 won and to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case from January 30, 2012 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 9% per annum from the following day to the full payment date, 20% per annum.

1. Preliminary Claim: 1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiffs 00 won and the amount calculated by 6% per annum from January 31, 2006 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. Each tax invoice (which is limited to the selected person) in an amount equivalent to the amount of money of December 31, 2005, issued by Defendant BBB to Defendant WhiteD as of December 10, 2005 and issued by the designated person after January 30, 2006, issued by Defendant BBB as of November 30, 2005 and after January 20, 2006, shall be confirmed as false certificates that are not effective in the Plaintiffs and Defendant Korea.

3. Defendant BBB, and Korea shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs 00 won and the amount calculated by 9% per annum from April 25, 2005 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

Alternatively,

4. Defendant WhiteD, and Korea shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs 00 won and 6% per annum from December 2, 2007 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

5. Defendant BBB WhiteD Co., Ltd. shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs 00 won and 9% interest per annum from September 12, 2006 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Judgment on the part of the claim for confirmation of the authenticity of the deed (the first part of the claim and the second part of the preliminary claim)

A. The plaintiff is referred to as "request for confirmation of the authenticity of a document" when seeking confirmation of the facts that the following documents are invalid or false documents:

1) An application and a written decision in the name of O in the Daejeon District Court Branch of Daejeon District Court 2006, Ma-ho, ○○○, a real estate auction case

2) A tax invoice alleged to have been issued by Defendant BBB, which was delivered by Defendant BBB to Defendant BBD, on November 2005, the name of Defendant BBB, the purchaser of which was the purchaser, and the tax invoice alleged to have been issued by Defendant BB.

3) “Detailed Statement of Transactions in July 2005, the name of Defendant BBB, the purchaser of which was the Defendant BBB, and the pertinent tax invoice and the pertinent document proving the delivery of the goods”, which were delivered by Defendant BBB to Defendant BBD.

4) Defendant BBBB delivered to Defendant BD, “Detailed Statement of Transactions in and on March 4, 2005, in the name of Defendant BBB, the purchaser of which was the Defendant BB, and each tax invoice and each document evidencing the delivery of the goods”

5) “BBB delivered by Defendant BB to Defendant BD” and “written statement of transaction in the name of BB of BB of 2005 with the purchaser of the designated person,” and “documents proving the delivery of the goods” and “documents certifying the delivery of the goods.”

6) Each deposit sheet that Defendant BBB delivered to Defendant WhiteD in several times in 2006 (the payee is limited to 00D or 000 U.S. corporation).

7) “A tax invoice equivalent to the value that Defendant BBBB transferred to Defendant BBD in the name of Defendant BBB, 202, 2003, and 2004, whichever is the buyer, entered into the OO Industrial Machinery Corporation, and any document evidencing the delivery of the goods”

8) The relevant bill (a certificate written in excess of KRW 000, which was presented to the Plaintiff on January 31, 2006 by the Nonparty 2BB on March 20, 2006) that is used as evidence of the cause of the claim in the case seeking a provisional attachment against the Plaintiff filed by the Defendant BBB in the Seoul Western District Court (a certificate written in excess of KRW 000, which was presented by

9) On March 31, 2004, the relevant deposit sheet (receipts) issued by Defendant BB to the selected person in the name of Defendant BBB against the money that Defendant BB transferred to Defendant BB.

10) As between April 1, 2004 and December 15, 2004, Defendant BBB and Defendant WhiteO make private transactions (see Financial Real Name System) and each deposit sheet equivalent to KRW 000,000,000,000,000 issued in the future of the Selection.

B. We examine whether a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of facts is permissible with respect to a document proving the legal relationship under Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act. If the truth becomes final and conclusive with respect to the authenticity of the document, the parties themselves cannot dispute any longer with respect to the legal relationship or at least the dispute itself. Therefore, in a lawsuit for confirmation of authenticity of a deed, the phrase "documents proving the legal relationship" refers to documents proving the existing legal relationship directly from the contents of the statement that can be proved whether or not there is a certain present legal relationship, and in addition, it is difficult to find that there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the true legal relationship in order to be legitimate (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da53714, Dec. 14, 201). However, it is not clear that the plaintiff's application for the commencement of auction of real estate, and that it does not constitute "written confirmation of the legal relationship between the parties concerned," and that the plaintiff's request for confirmation of the legal relationship itself does not constitute the current legal relationship with each other's written request for confirmation, and that it is unlawful.

2. Determination as to the claim for revocation of fraudulent act (the latter part of Paragraph 1, and Paragraph 3)

The Plaintiff, and Defendant BB, on the ground that the monetary transaction made with Defendant BBD was made by using the borrowed account, respectively, and the Defendants are obligated to cancel each transaction, and the Defendants are obligated to file a revised return and return receipts, etc. following the cancellation of each of the above transactions to the Plaintiffs. In addition, the Plaintiff sought that Defendant BB cancel a series of fraudulent acts related to the tax invoice, and the purport of the claim is unclear, but considering the above purport of the claim and the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff appears not to cancel the debtor’s fraudulent act to preserve the responsible property as the creditor against the Defendants, but to cancel the transaction with the designated party due to the issuance of the tax invoice by Defendant BBBB, etc., which caused damage to the designated party. Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was made above, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation is limited to the so-called formation lawsuit aimed at changing the legal relations under the substantive law, and there is no provision allowing this, and this part of the lawsuit in this case’s fraudulent act is also unlawful.

3. Determinations on the part of the claim for monetary payment (mainly, 2, 4, 1, and 3 through 5)

The plaintiffs seek against the defendants the payment of the same amount as the claim(compensation or unjust enrichment due to unlawful act). However, in full view of the forms submitted by the plaintiff, the written application for amendment of the claim(additional addition), the preparatory documents, and the plaintiff's arguments in the court of law, the plaintiffs' arguments cannot be identified as the subject matter of lawsuit because the plaintiffs cannot know about the cause of claim, such as the plaintiff's claim and the basis for calculation of the amount, as stated in the plaintiff's claim against the defendants. Thus, the part of the claim for monetary payment in this case is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is all unlawful and dismissed.