Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Whether fraudulent act is established in division of property by agreement or divorce

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The contract of donation concluded on July 1, 2014 with respect to the real estate recorded in the separate sheet between the former Cheong-gu Defendant and the civilian 00 shall be revoked, and the defendant shall implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership completed on July 2, 2014 by the Seoul Central District Court No. 143579 with respect to the said real estate.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 27, 2014, Kimpo-si, Yangpo-si, Yangpo-si, Yangpo-si, Kimpo-si 00 and 1/6 shares on his/her own among the land of 000, and reported capital gains tax on April 28, 2014. However, the fact of underreporting was confirmed and the head of Seodaemun-si notified the 00 citizens of capital gains tax of KRW 173,552,720 on July 31, 2014.

(b) immigration0 is delinquent in 182,924,560 won, including present additional charges;

C. On July 1, 2014, a resident0 entered into a contract of donation (hereinafter referred to as “the instant donation contract”) that donates 1/2 shares (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real property”) among the Defendant, the husband, and 1/2 shares (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real property”) in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “instant 302”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on July 2, 2014.

D. On July 17, 2014, the Defendant submitted to the Seoul Family Court an application for confirmation of the intention of divorce, and filed a report of divorce on August 22, 2014 with 00 on August 22, 2014.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1 through 3, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the gift contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, since the 00th citizen donated the real estate to the defendant in this case and there is a lack of joint collateral for the claim.

The defendant asserts that the 302th of this case was originally owned by the defendant, and that on April 20, 2007, the 1/2 shares were trusted to 00 on April 20, 2007, and again returned in the process of the title trust agreement.

B. Determination

(1) As a result of the reduction of joint security against the general creditor by transferring a certain property to one’s spouse by means of division of property in a divorce by the debtor with excessive debt, the said division of property is in accordance with the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act.

Unless there are special circumstances to recognize that it is excessive beyond considerable degree, a fraudulent act does not constitute a subject of revocation by a creditor. However, since the gift of this case cannot be deemed a legitimate division of property with respect to excess beyond considerable degree, it can be subject to revocation. The burden of proving that there are special circumstances to deem it as a division of property exceeding considerable degree (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da33258, Sept. 14, 2006). (2) As seen above, in light of the fact that a citizen0 donated the real estate of this case to the defendant and applied for confirmation of divorce before 20 days elapse from the donation, it is reasonable to deem that the donation of this case is a division of property by divorce between the citizen and the defendant, so in order to recognize the gift of this case as a fraudulent act, it shall be proved that the donation of this case goes beyond considerable degree of division of property and that the plaintiff is a division of property in accordance with the above legal principles.

According to the evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 7, the defendant acquired the ownership of this case No. 302 on April 22, 1994. The defendant around that time, with the debtor as to the title Nos. 302 of this case, the registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of 39,00,000 won in the name of the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank, the registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of 12,00,000 won in the name of the national bank, was revoked on July 7, 2006 and January 4, 200, each of which was revoked on July 7, 2006, and 00. The defendant and 100 had resided in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, 3, 777,924,504, and had been transferred on May 16, 2014, it is difficult to view that there was no evidence to acknowledge the property division other than the real property in this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.