the transfer of real estate shares to the spouse in excess of obligations constitutes a fraudulent act.

In the instant case, one-half of the shares in the instant real property, which is the sole property, was put in excess of liability by donation to the Defendant, and such act constitutes a fraudulent act that reduces the joint security of the general creditors.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

2013 Ghana 215496 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

A Kim a

December 20, 2013

oly 2014.10

1. The contract of donation concluded on April 18, 2013 between the defendant and Kima with respect to 1/2 shares in the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on April 18, 2013 by the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court) No. 17664 with respect to shares in 1/2 of the real estate listed in the attached list to Kima.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is the legal couple married to Kima and Kima on February 7, 1992. The Defendant and Kima shared on July 18, 2009 each one-half share of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on August 13, 2009 due to trade on July 18, 2009.

B. On December 31, 2012 and March 31, 2013, the date when the liability for tax payment was established for Kima, the Plaintiff had a tax claim that constitutes a total of 00000 of the notified tax amounts as of March 31, 2013. Kima did not pay the said tax, and thus became the base tax amount in arrears on or around August 2013.C. Kima donated 1/2 of the instant real estate to the Defendant, on April 18, 2013, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the said shares as described in Paragraph 2 of the Disposition on April 18, 2013. At the time, Kima did not own any property, such as real estate.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The establishment of a fraudulent act;

A. According to the above facts, 1/2 of the instant real estate, which can be deemed as property in Kimaa-a-reason, was donated to the Defendant with a share in excess of the obligation, and such act constitutes a fraudulent act as a result of reducing common creditors’ joint security, and Kima-a knew that such act was committed with the knowledge that it would prejudice the creditors, including the Plaintiff, etc., and the Defendant, a beneficiary, is presumed to be a malicious act.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that it is not a fraudulent act since he was donated the above shares to divorce consolation money in advance.

However, the above argument is without merit in light of the following: ① it is difficult to recognize that the defendant received the above donation in relation to the divorce because the defendant did not file a divorce lawsuit or divorce as of the closing date of pleadings in this case; ② there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above donation constitutes a division of property pursuant to divorce; ② The defendant couple acquired and shared the real estate in this case on August 13, 2009, after a considerable period of marriage life, about 3 years and 8 months after the defendant acquired and shared the real estate in this case, Kima donated shares, and thus, the defendant becomes to own the shares independently; and the part of the property formation in the marital life is deemed to have already been reflected at the time of acquisition of shares, and there is no assertion or proof as to special circumstances that can be seen otherwise. Thus, the defendant's above argument is without merit. Accordingly, on April 18, 2013, Kima has revoked the donation of 1/2 shares in this case as fraudulent act and the defendant has the obligation to cancel the ownership transfer registration procedure with respect to the above shares.

3. Defendant’s bona fide defense

On this issue, the defendant argues that he is a bona fide beneficiary after he was aware of the existence of the amount in arrears of the plaintiff against Kima.

In light of the circumstances revealed in the pleading process of the instant case, such as there is no evidence to acknowledge the foregoing assertion, and rather, the relationship between the Defendant and Kima, Kima, the fact that the Kima was operating a specialized construction subcontract, and the seizure of the real estate in the instant case on February 7, 2012 and August 27, 2012 due to taxes and health insurance in arrears, etc., the Defendant appears to have been aware of the circumstances where Kima was placed in excess of its obligation. Thus, the said defense is without merit.

4. Conclusion

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