in light of the fact that real estate was sold at a lower price than the market price in excess of the debt

Even if a sales contract was concluded before the notice of taxation was served, it is difficult to deem that there was no intention or the beneficiary was bona fide in view of the fact that the act of transferring real estate, which is the basis of the taxation claim at the time of the sales contract, was already conducted, and that real estate was sold at a price below the market price

2012 Written revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

XX Co., Ltd

November 23, 2012

December 21, 2012

1. The sales contract concluded on August 17, 2010 between the Defendant and Gangwon (51208-1000, address: Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 000-8) is revoked.

2. The Defendant shall comply with the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on September 9, 2010 by the Seoul Central District Court registry No. 44266, which was completed on September 9, 2010.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to the transfer of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government XXdong apartment shopping mall 00-110, the Plaintiff notified the Gangwon-gu of the payment of capital gains tax on December 1, 2010 to the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Plaintiff did not pay the capital gains tax and the total amount of the principal and the additional charges is KRW 00 won by the end of October 201 as follows.

(Contents) The following:

B. On August 17, 2010, Gangwon sold real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Defendant in KRW 000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and on September 9, 2010, the registration of ownership transfer was completed for the Defendant on the ground of the said sale.

C. At the time of the above sales contract, there are real estate and deposit claims up to a total of KRW 000,000, and as a small property, there were secured debt and deposit claims up to a total of KRW 000,00, Gangwon had been in excess of its obligation.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4 (including each number), Gap evidence 5-2, Gap evidence 6-12 (including each number), Gap evidence 14-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The Plaintiff sought the revocation of the instant sales contract and its restitution on the ground that the instant sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, even though the Plaintiff knew that the instant sales contract was concluded around September 2010, and that the instant sales contract constituted a fraudulent act, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on January 9, 2012, which was one year after the lapse of one year thereafter, and that the period of exclusion from the exercise of the obligee’s right to revocation was exceeded.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to prove that the contract of this case was concluded around September 2010, and that the contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Formation of preserved claims

At the time of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff’s act of transferring the real estate of the Gangwon-A, which serves as the basis for the establishment of the above taxation claim against the Gangwon-A, was already conducted, and thus, there was a high probability for the fact that the above claim is established in the near future. In fact, the probability was realized and the above claim was established, and thus, the above claim against the Gangwon-A against the Plaintiff

(b) The intention to commit fraudulent acts and to injure himself;

In full view of the appraisal results and the purport of the entire argument of appraiser KimA, the market value of the instant real estate at the time of the instant sales contract is recognized as having been 000 won. The selling of the instant real estate to the Defendant in excess of the debt constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to other creditors, which is acknowledged as the intention of the Gangwon-A, and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed.

C. Judgment on the defendant's argument

The defendant sent a notice of pre-announcement of taxation to Kang on August 16, 2010, but the above notice reached Kang on August 25, 2010. The defendant asserts to the effect that the contract of this case was concluded on August 16, 2010 prior to the arrival of the above notice, and that the defendant did not have any intention of harm of Kang at the time of the contract of this case, and that the defendant was also bona fide.

However, even if the contract of this case was concluded prior to the arrival of the Plaintiff’s notice of prior notice of taxation, in light of the fact that the act of transferring the Plaintiff’s real estate was already conducted at the time of the contract of this case, and that Gangwon sold the instant real estate at a price lower than the market price under excess of the obligation, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s assertion was a deceased intention, or that the Defendant was a Defendant’s intent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, and therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the sales contract of this case shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of this case as stated in paragraph (2) of this case with respect to the real estate of this case to the Gangseo.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.