the transfer of shares in excess of obligations constitutes a fraudulent act.

The act of transferring the shares of this case, which is the sole property, at a low price, to the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act as a reduction in common security of all general creditors.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

2013 Ghana 21369 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Kimo

March 6, 2014

March 27, 2014

1. As to the shares listed in the separate sheet:

A. On March 10, 2009, which was concluded between the defendant and the non-partyo, the sales contract was revoked, and B. The defendant will implement the procedure in the name of the non-partyo on the ground of restitution due to the revocation of the fraudulent act.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

(a) Disposition of purchase and sale of o and imposition of transfer tax;

(1) On January 2, 2009, Eoo has three parcels, such as oo, oo, and oo (hereinafter referred to as "the instant real property"), of the Namyang-dong, oo, and oo (hereinafter referred to as "the instant real property"), of the Republic of Korea Oo on January 2, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the instant real property"), of the Republic of Korea Oo Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "KoreaOO Corporation, even at the time of transferring the ownership

On December 29, 2008, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of a consultation on the land for public use. (2) Accordingly, Leeo filed a final return on capital gains tax on the real estate of this case on October 18, 2010, but did not pay Leeo, the plaintiff did not impose capital gains tax on Leeo (hereinafter "the capital gains tax of this case") on November 15, 2010.

(3) On the other hand, the delinquent amount of capital gains tax that was not paid by Leeo as of the date of filing the lawsuit in this case is Hoowon.

B. Transfer of shares to the defendant of Leeo

(1) On March 10, 2009, Eo sold the shares listed in the attached list to the Defendant in total of KRW 0000,000 in face value of KRW 5o,000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant share transfer contract”) to the Defendant, which is the dynamics of Eo, and Ea is the representative of BB industry, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “CB industry”). On March 10, 2009, Eo sold the shares listed in the attached list to the Defendant in total of KRW 5o,000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant share transfer contract”). There is no ground for recognition / [[]: Facts, Gap 1 through 4, Gap 7, 8, and 10, each

2. Determination

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee's right of revocation has arisen prior to the act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act in principle, there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of the obligee's right at the time of the fraudulent act, and that the claim should be established in the near future because the probability is realized in the near future, and where a claim has been created in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim in the obligee's right of revocation. This legal principle applies to a tax claim. Thus, even if a tax claim was not imposed by the specific decision of correction, etc. at the time of the fraudulent act, even if there was a basic legal relationship as to the occurrence of a tax claim, and where a tax claim was established in detail through a series of procedures, such as the actual decision of correction, etc., under the near future

In addition, when a creditor exercises his right of revocation, in principle, he cannot exercise his right of revocation in excess of his claim amount. In this case, the creditor's claim amount includes the interest or delay damages incurred after the fraudulent act and the time of closing argument in fact-finding proceedings. Meanwhile, the additional dues under Articles 21 (1) and 21 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act are the kind of incidental dues imposed in the meaning of interest on unpaid portion if national taxes are not paid by the due date, and if national taxes are not paid by the due date without the due date for payment, it naturally occurs pursuant to Article 21 (1) and (2) of the same Act and its amount is determined. Therefore, insofar as the transfer income tax claim is recognized as the preserved right of the obligee's right of revocation, the amount of the transfer income tax includes the additional dues accrued from the time of the fraudulent act to the time of closing argument at fact-finding proceedings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001; 200o.

B. Whether the fraudulent act was established

(1) The debtor's insolvency;

① Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of entry and pleadings in evidence No. 1 through 8 and evidence No. 6 of this case, Leeo received compensation for expropriation of the real estate of this case, but on March 10, 2009, the stock transfer contract of this case was concluded, Leeo's active property at the time of Ho bank (Account Number 364-04-*** in the case of Account Number 1005-100-******* in the case of** the balance of KRW 000, Account Number 1002-408-****** in the case of Gooo, Account Number 103-80-****** in the case of * in the case of ** in the case of 1018* in the case of o** in the case of 1018* in the case of o** in the case of o-100-40-O** in the case of the balance****** in the account number******* in the account number***** in the case of 60-10-O********** in the

② As to this, the Defendant asserted that, at the time of the instant share transfer agreement, Lee was the representative director of the e industry (hereinafter referred to as the “e industry”), Lee was holding the machinery equivalent to the KRW o billion which was purchased as part of the instant real estate expropriation compensation, which was received by the Doo Corporation, and that, upon the receipt of the said amount of the compensation under the name of e industry, Leeo shall be lent to e industry as part of the instant real estate expropriation compensation, it should be included in the said amount of claims for the e industry and the amount of the compensation for the expropriation of the instant real estate to e industry in the name of e industry, and that it should be actively included in the unpaid amount of claims for the e industry and the unpaid amount of the compensation for the expropriation of the instant real estate to Doo Corporation.

The written evidence No. 8 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that Eo owned a machine equivalent to o0 million won at the time of the contract for the transfer of the stocks of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (it is reasonable to view that E industry was not the property under the name of E industry operated by Eo, even if the used machine was purchased with compensation for expropriation of the real estate of this case, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence No. 1, No. 7-2, and No. 8 of this case, it is reasonable to view that E industry was not the property under the name of Eo, but the property under the name of E industry operated by Eo). It is insufficient to view that E industry lent oo to E industry only with the evidence submitted by the defendant (the fact that o received compensation for expropriation under the name of E industry cannot be deemed to have lent e industry the amount equivalent to the compensation for expropriation. Rather, there is no evidence to support that E industry was insufficient to acknowledge otherwise).

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that loans against the secondhand machinery and the e industry possessed by Leeo at the time of the contract for the transfer of shares of this case should be recognized as active property in determining whether Leeo's insolvency is insolvent. In addition, even if Leeo had claims against Leeo, at the time of the contract for the transfer of shares of this case, it is apparent that the sum of Leeo's active property and the amount of the unpaid compensation does not reach the amount of the plaintiff's transfer income tax of this case, since the fact that the sum of Leeo's active property and the amount of the unpaid compensation does not reach the amount of the plaintiff's transfer income tax of this case is apparent, it is difficult to reverse the judgment that the transfer of shares of this case was omitted in excess of Lee's obligation due to the contract for the transfer of shares of this case, or the joint security in the situation where Lee had already been insufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claims

Therefore, the defendant's assertion related to this part is without merit.

(2) The establishment of fraudulent act

The so-called obligor’s bad faith, i.e., the obligor’s awareness that the obligor, as a subjective element of the obligee’s right of revocation, should not prejudice the obligee, that the obligor would not be able to fully satisfy the obligee’s claims because the obligor’s property is reduced by the obligor’s act of disposal of assets, and thus, the obligor’s joint security of claims is insufficient or that the joint security already in short is more deficient. Such recognition does not require awareness that it would compromise the obligee’s claims in relation to the general obligee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da57320, May 12, 198)

According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant, a beneficiary, is presumed to have been aware of the fact that o voluntarily filed the final return of the capital gains tax of this case, and that o had reached a state of excess of liability, and thus, the joint security already in a state of shortage under the stock transfer contract of this case was more deficient. As such, the instant stock transfer contract constitutes a fraudulent act causing the shortage of joint security to general creditors, and as long as oo’s intent to commit an injury to the obligor, a beneficiary is presumed to have been the beneficiary. Determination on

At the time of the establishment of the e industry on June 1, 1991 by the defendant's husband, the defendant participated in the e industry as the shareholder of the above company by Leeo, Leeo, Leeo, Leeo, and Leeo due to the regulation on the number of promoters. On March 2009, the defendant listened to the advice that only one shareholder can operate the e industry through the tax accounting corporation and took over the shares of the e industry publication held by Leeo, Leeo, Leeo, Leeo, and Leeo at the face value, and there was no intention to harm the plaintiff at the time of conclusion of the share transfer contract of this case.

According to the results of the inquiry into the fact that oo is the representative director of the e industry, oo that oo may enter into a sales contract at par value by the transferor, transferee, and transferee of the shares of the e industry, oo, oo, oo, and oo held on March 10, 2009, each of the shares issued by e industry and issued by oo that oo was transferred to the defendant on March 10, 209, and the defendant paid oo only won to oo in accordance with the share transfer contract of this case.

However, each of the above evidence, evidence, evidence Nos. 9, 11, 12, and evidence No. 8, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of pleadings, namely, ① the relationship between Eo and the defendant by marriage, and there was money transaction between Eo and E industry even after the conclusion of the contract for stock transfer of this case, ② Ec has been well operated after the establishment of o industry in 1991, and the rest of the shareholders have to sell shares to the defendant collectively at the above time, and ③ E industry has been designated as a long-term continuing business operator from the tax authorities, and since the net asset value in 2008 exceeds o0 billion won, it seems that the share transfer contract of this case was traded at the face value in consideration of the fact that the net asset value in this case exceeds oo's total asset value in consideration of the fact that o's shares were sold, but it seems that it seems that the above net asset value in this case's share transfer value in consideration of the fact that o's shares were sold.

Therefore, the above facts alone are insufficient to reverse the defendant's bad faith presumption, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the defendant's good faith, and the defendant's above defense is not acceptable.

D. Sub-determination

Ultimately, the instant share transfer contract is a fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, and thus should be revoked, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the transfer procedure for the shares listed in the separate sheet to Eo for its original state.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.