Whether the act of transferring stocks, real estate, or remitting money constitutes a fraudulent act in excess of debt;

The transfer of shares, real estate, and the transfer of money to children in excess of debt constitutes a fraudulent act; however, the transfer of money constitutes a fraudulent act, in all circumstances, part of the costs of lawsuit is ordered to be borne by the plaintiff.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

2011 Gohap25858 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

1. WhiteA 2. leB

October 31, 2012

November 22, 2012

1. (a) The sales contract concluded on December 31, 2010 with respect to the shares listed in the Schedule A in Schedule A between OO-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-ODD 507 Do 1202) and the defendant OA, which was concluded on September 16, 194;

B. The gift agreement concluded on February 9, 201 with respect to each real property listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list between the largestCC and Defendant 0A is within the scope of OOE:

C. Each contract of gift of OOB concluded on December 13, 2010 between the largestCC and Defendant leB shall be revoked.

2. (a) Defendant 0A shall implement the transfer procedure of shares transfer on the grounds of restitution due to revocation of fraudulent act with respect to the shares listed in the annexed Table 1 set forth above to the largestCC.

B. Defendant 0A shall pay to the Plaintiff 00 UOO and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

C. Defendant leB shall pay to the Plaintiff 00 UOO and its amount at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant 0A are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/6 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 0A is borne by the Plaintiff, the remainder is borne by Defendant 0A, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 0B is borne by Defendant 2.

Cheong-gu Office

The gift agreement entered into on February 9, 201 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1-A, (c), (2), and (3) of the order and between the largestCC and Defendant 0A with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 of the annexed sheet No. 1 (the Plaintiff claimed against Defendant 0A for the transfer of ownership to the Plaintiff regarding the shares listed in the annexed sheet No. 1, but the cause of the claim is that the shares originally owned by the largestCC should be restored to the largestCC due to the revocation of the fraudulent act. In light of the purport that the claim shall be restored to the first largest

1. Basic facts

"A. On October 29, 2010, in the case of the auction of real estate in OOO in Seoul Central District Court 2010 OOOOO, the OOO-dong 269-2 land and above-ground buildings (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the auction real estate in this case"), on which the OOO-dong 269-2 land and above-ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as "the auction real estate in this case"), reported the transfer income tax on them, but did not pay the national tax as listed below as of December 1, 201," and tax items ".

Date of establishment of tax liability

Deadline for payment

Amount of delinquent taxes;

guidance.

Principal Tax

Additional Dues

Transfer Income Tax

oly 30, 2010

201.07.31

OOO

OOO

OOO

Global Income Tax

November 30, 2010

November 30, 2010

OOO

OOO

OOO

Value-added Tax

2010.09.30

oly 25, 2010

OOO

OOO

OOO

Global Income Tax

November 30, 2008

November 30, 2008

OOO

OOO

OOO

guidance.

OOO

OOO

OOO

B. On December 31, 2010, the MaximumCC entered into a contract with Defendant WhiteA to sell the shares listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant shares”) to OOO (Accounting: 31,464 shares x OOO) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); and (c) “The MaximumCC entered into a contract with Defendant WhiteA to donate each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “instant real estate donation contract”); and on February 9, 2011, it entered into the registration of ownership transfer in the future on the instant real estate; (d) “The MaximumCC made the payment of the purchase amount into the entire pleadings to Defendant POB witness No. 8 (hereinafter “OB testimony”); and (c) made the payment of the purchase amount into the entire pleadings to Defendant White on December 13, 2010 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

2. The occurrence of right to revoke the fraudulent act;

(a) Occurrence of preserved claims;

(1) First, in relation to the Plaintiff’s claim for transfer income tax, the tax liability is established on the last day of the month in which the amount serving as the tax base for the Plaintiff’s income tax paid by preliminary return is generated (Article 21(1) and (2)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). The obligation to pay transfer income tax following the sale of the auction real estate of this case is established on October 31, 2010, which is the last day of the month in which the auction real estate of this case is sold, and it is apparent that the sales contract of this case, the instant real estate donation contract, the instant real estate donation contract, and the instant payment of the said money have been established earlier than the payment of the said money, so the Plaintiff’

(2) Next, we examine the Plaintiff’s global income tax and value-added tax claim.

Since the liability to pay income tax and value-added tax is established when the taxable period expires (Article 21(1)1 and 7 of the Framework Act on National Taxes), in the case of global income tax claims of the principal OOOO, the sales contract of this case, the real estate donation contract of this case, and the tax liability on December 31, 2008, the transfer of the money of this case, are the preserved claim for revocation of fraudulent act of this case.

Meanwhile, in principle, a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation should have arisen before the obligor performs a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee. However, there is a high probability that at the time of the juristic act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis for the establishment of the claim, and that the claim would have been created in the near future, and where a claim is actually realized in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim for the obligee’s right of revocation. Therefore, in the case of a principal tax OOO’s global income tax and value-added tax claim, the amount of the claim in this case was established on December 31, 2010, which was the date of the conclusion of the sales contract in this case, and there was a high probability that the claim would have been established based on the legal relationship in the near future, and thus, the claim shall become a preserved claim for the fraudulent act in this case.

(3) Furthermore, additional dues and aggravated additional dues under Articles 21 and 22 of the former National Tax Collection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10527, Apr. 4, 2011) are a kind of incidental dues imposed in the meaning of interest on arrears in the event national taxes are not paid by the due date. If national taxes are not paid by the due date without the due date for payment, a claim under Articles 21 and 22 of the same Act naturally occurs and the amount thereof is determined. Thus, insofar as a tax claim is deemed a preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation, the amount of such tax claim includes additional dues and aggravated additional dues arising from the time of the closing of arguments in fact-finding proceedings after the fraudulent act.

(b) Fraudulent act and intent to commit suicide;

(1) Payment of the instant money

(A) Legal nature

On December 10, 2010, in view of the fact that, on the date of distribution of the auction procedure regarding the auction real estate of this case, LCC received dividends from surplus OB as the debtor and owner of the auction real estate of this case on December 13, 2010, and paid OB won among the facts that, around that time, LCC was in arrears with the national tax of OB, it can be recognized by each statement of 4 and 5 evidence that there is no dispute between the parties, or that there was no other monetary transaction relationship between OB and 30, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that OB paid 20,000 won to the Plaintiff (including 30,000,000,0000,0000,0000).

(B) Establishment of fraudulent act

In light of the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, “A, 4 through 7, 9, and 13 evidence,” and appraiser Kim E-E appraisal, LCC had owned the instant shares and the instant real estate, dividends, including the instant amount, OOOO on December 13, 2010. The instant shares were sold to POO on December 31, 2010. The appraisal value of the instant real estate as of May 10, 2012 constitutes OOOB, and the maximum amount of the instant shares should be determined to have been in excess of the amount of capital gains tax to the Plaintiff, and the maximum amount of the instant shares should be determined to have been determined to have been in excess of the amount of capital gains tax to the Plaintiff, under the circumstances that would have been in excess of the amount of capital gains tax to the Plaintiff, the maximum amount of the instant shares to be determined to have been in excess of the amount of capital gains tax to the Plaintiff, and the amount to be determined to have been equivalent to the value of the instant shares under the contract.

(2) The sales contract of this case

(A) On December 31, 2010, when the sales contract of this case was concluded with Defendant 0A, the maximumCC owned the remainder of OOOOO on the instant shares and the instant real estate, dividend OOOE. At the time, the instant real estate and the OOO-type 353-1 land and above buildings were established, but the amount of debts for the instant real estate out of the liabilities subject to factory mortgage can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: (a) the amount of debts for the instant real estate, among the liabilities subject to factory mortgage, is not in dispute between the parties concerned; (b) the amount of debts for the instant real estate was sold to Defendant 0OOE on December 31, 2010; (c) the value of the instant real estate sold to Defendant 0OOE at the time of ratification on May 10, 2012; and (d) the value of the instant real estate sold to Plaintiff 300,000 won at the time of ratification on the instant real estate.

According to the above facts, on December 31, 2010, 2010, the date of the conclusion of the contract of this case, the largestCC's active property is composed of OOOO(Calculation + OOOOOOO Won + OOOOOOO Won) and the small property was in excess of the above OOOO Won, but the largestCC had been in excess of its liabilities. However, the sales contract of this case is an act detrimental to the plaintiff. In light of the circumstance and time of the conclusion of the contract of this case, the maximumCC and the status relationship between defendant 0A and the conclusion of the contract of this case, it is reasonable to deem that it was aware that the plaintiff was harmed due to the conclusion of the contract of this case, and in such case, the contract of this case is presumed to have been in bad faith of the beneficiary, and thus the sales contract of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

(B) As to this, Defendant 0A entered into the instant sales contract with the largestCC to enable it to fulfill its duty to pay capital gains tax on the Plaintiff. In fact, the largestCC paid capital gains tax in arrears with the purchase price of the instant shares. Defendant 0A asserted to the effect that at the time, Defendant 0A was unaware of the fact that the conclusion of the instant sales contract would prejudice the creditors including the Plaintiff at the time, and thus, Defendant 0A was presumed to have been unaware of the fact that the beneficiary would harm the creditors. As such, Defendant 1 was presumed to have been aware of the beneficiary’s bad faith in a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit, Defendant 0A was responsible for proving his good faith in order to exempt the beneficiary from his responsibility. However, it is insufficient to view that Defendant 0A’s presumption of bad faith with Defendant 0A’s intention to cause harm to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

(3) The instant real estate donation contract

(A) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6, it is recognized that the largestCC owned an OOO on February 9, 201, which entered into the instant real estate donation agreement with defendant 0A, and at the time, there was a factory mortgage on the instant real estate and the OOO-type 353-1 land and above-ground buildings, but the amount of the debt regarding the instant real estate out of the above factory collateral security debt was an OOO, the maximumCC was in arrears with the plaintiff as of February 9, 201, the appraised value of the instant real estate as of May 10, 201 was confirmed as above, which was the value of the instant real estate as of November 29, 201, which was the execution date of the instant real estate donation agreement.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that on February 9, 2011, the largestCC’s active property is OOO (calculated: OOOOA + OOOOOOO) and the small property is in excess of its liabilities, but the most effective property was donated to Defendant 0A, which is the only real property, to Defendant 0A, constitutes an act detrimental to the Plaintiff. In light of the developments and timing of the conclusion of the instant real estate donation contract, the most effective property was aware that the Plaintiff would be harmed due to the conclusion of the instant real estate donation contract, and in such a case, Defendant 0A’s bad faith, which is the beneficiary, should be presumed, so the instant real estate donation contract should be revoked as a fraudulent act.

(B) As to this, Defendant 0A alleged to the effect that the instant real estate was donated to the largestCC as it was an essential property for the management of the company and was unaware of the fact that the conclusion of the instant real estate donation contract would prejudice the creditors including the Plaintiff at the time. However, there is no evidence to support that Defendant 0A’s presumption of bad faith against the intent to commit suicide was reversed, and therefore, Defendant 0A’s allegation is without merit.

3. Methods and scope of reinstatement;

(a) Return of originals;

As the instant sales contract concluded between the largestCC and Defendant 0A was revoked as a fraudulent act, Defendant 0A is obligated to implement the transfer procedure for the instant shares to the largestCC due to restitution due to the revocation of fraudulent act.

(b) Value compensation;

(1) The instant real estate donation contract

In a case where a juristic act on real estate constitutes a fraudulent act, in principle, cancellation of the fraudulent act and cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership, etc. However, in a case where a fraudulent act was committed with respect to real estate on which a mortgage has been established, such fraudulent act shall be deemed to have been established only within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount of the mortgage from the value of the real estate. Therefore, in a case where the registration of creation of mortgage was cancelled by repayment, etc. after a fraudulent act, ordering cancellation of a fraudulent act and restoration of the real estate itself to the extent that the portion that was not initially the common creditors’ joint security would have been restored, and it would result in a violation of fairness and fairness. Therefore, an order to restore the real estate itself by revocation of a fraudulent act would only be issued within the extent of the balance obtained by deducting the secured debt amount of

In the instant case, on January 29, 2003, prior to the conclusion of the instant contract for the gift of the instant real estate, the FF Bank established a factory collateral mortgage of the maximum debt amount, and thus cancelled on August 19, 201, which was after the conclusion of the said contract, on the instant real estate, on January 29, 2003, which was before the conclusion of the instant contract for the gift of the instant real estate, as well as on August 19, 201. The aforementioned factory collateral mortgage was established on the instant real estate and on the land and above-ground buildings as joint collateral. However, the amount of debt for the instant real estate out of the aforementioned factory collateral collateral mortgage was established on the ground that the amount of debt for the instant real estate was an OOO, and the appraisal value of the instant real estate at the time of May 10, 2012 can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the parties’ dispute, the statement in subparagraph 3, and the purport of the entire appraisal as a whole, the market value of the instant real estate as of the OE.

According to the above facts, the real estate donation contract of this case shall be revoked within the limit of the remaining amount of OOOO (not exceeding 10 won shall be discarded) limited to the amount of the secured debt of factory mortgage cancelled by OOOOO of the amount equivalent to the market price of the real estate of this case as of the date of the closing of argument of this case. Defendant 0A is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the day following the day when this judgment becomes final and conclusive to the day when the whole amount of the real estate donation contract of this case is fully repaid to the Plaintiff. The plaintiff's assertion seeking revocation of the whole real estate donation contract of this case exceeding the above scope

(B) The donation contract of the instant money

If a creditor’s revocation of fraudulent act and a claim for restitution are acknowledged, the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is liable to return the object of the fraudulent act to the debtor as restitution, and where it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the original object, the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is liable to compensate for the value equivalent to the value of the object of the fraudulent act as a performance of duty to restore, and where it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the original object, means cases where the creditor cannot expect the realization of the performance from the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser in light of the concept of social experience, rule of law or transaction, rather than cases where the return of the original object

As seen earlier, so long as it is impossible to return originals because the fraudulent act against Defendant LAB constitutes a donation of money, it shall be restored to its originals by means of return. As such, Defendant LB is obligated to refund the instant money received from the largestCC equivalent to the value of OOB won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant leB shall be accepted on the ground of its reason, and the claim against the defendant leB shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed on the ground of its reason. It is so decided as per Disposition.