Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Whether it constitutes revocation of fraudulent act by reducing property

Basic Act

200Na0000 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

000

00

Suwon District Court Decision 2000Kadan00000 Delivered on October 000, 2000

00.0.00

00.0.00

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The sales contract concluded on October 0, 200 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet between the Defendant and the 000 shall be revoked. The Defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration that was completed on October 0, 200 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff by the Daegu District Court Registry No. 0000,000.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff currently holds a taxation claim equivalent to KRW 0,000,000,000,000 as indicated below as value-added tax and global income tax prior to October 00, 200 for stuffed crimes.

B. On October 0, 200, 000, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each of the real estate of this case") on its own possession was sold to the Defendant, who is one's own punishment, for KRW 00,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case") and on the same day, the registration of ownership transfer stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter referred to as "the registration of ownership transfer of this case") was completed.

C. Meanwhile, at the time of the instant sales contract, 000 did not have any particular assets except each of the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Establishment of fraudulent act

According to the above facts, under the circumstances where the plaintiff was liable for tax liability equivalent to the total amount of KRW 0,000,000,000 as of October 00, 2000, as shown in the table, the contract of this case was concluded with the defendant, who is one of his own exclusive property, and the registration of transfer of ownership of this case was completed on the ground of this conclusion with the defendant, thereby doing a fraudulent act with the intent to prejudice the plaintiff, who is the creditor, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the instant sales contract concluded between the Defendant and 000 regarding each of the instant real estate shall be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration to the Plaintiff with the restoration to its original state.

B. Whether it constitutes a responsible property (title trust)

1) The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that the real estate of this case was originally purchased by the defendant's husband from 000 on Oct. 00, 190 or 000 on his own from her husband from 000 on Oct. 00, 200, and that since 000, the amount of KRW 00,000 on Oct. 0, 200 and 000 on Oct. 0, 200, the remaining amount of KRW 00,000 on Oct. 1, 200 on Oct. 10, 200 on Oct. 10, 200, the owner of each of the real estate of this case was not liable for damages to the defendant's own property from 00,000 on Oct. 10 to Oct. 10, 200, each of the creditors of this case, who had already owned each of the real estate of this case and had not been liable for damages to 000,000 on his own property.

2) Determination

A) First of all, among the evidence that correspond to the Defendant’s above assertion on title trust, the evidence No. 4-1 and No. 12-1 of the evidence No. 4, and the testimony of No. 12-1 of the witness of the first instance trial is based on the following: (a) each originator or statement is in a very close relationship with the debtor himself/herself or the defendant and has a close interest in the instant case itself; and (b) it is difficult to believe that

B) Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the written evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 3-1, 2, 5, 6, 7-2, 1, 13, and 16 of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, 2 of the evidence Nos. 6, 7-2, and 13 and 16 as to each of the real estate of this case, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of the husband No. 000 of 000 on Oct. 00, 200 (hereinafter referred to as the "pre-sale transaction"), and the ownership transfer registration was completed on the ground of the pre-sale transaction of 00.0 on Oct. 00, 200; thereafter, the defendant's husband's ownership transfer registration was completed on the ground of the pre-sale transaction of 00 apartment units at the time of the purchase and sale of 00,000 and the pre-sale account at the time of 000.

After the remittance of 00,000,000 won and the total of 00,000,000 won, including 00,000,000.0.00,000 won, the fact that the total of 00,000,000 won was remitted from October 0, 000 to October 00, 000 is recognized.

On the other hand, each of the evidence mentioned above and evidence Nos. 6-1 and 6-2

In full view of the overall purport, the following circumstances, namely, ① a sales contract made at the time of the preceding sale, stating that the total amount of the purchase price is KRW 00,000,000,000, not the Defendant’s assertion, and the amount paid, date of payment and method of payment, unlike the Defendant’s assertion, shall be paid KRW 00,000,000, which is three weeks prior to the transfer of KRW 00,000,000, which is three weeks prior to the transfer of KRW 00,000,000, after the transfer, and the payment of KRW 00,000,000, which is later than the remittance.

In light of the fact that the existing 00,000 won for the 000-000 collateral security obligation was not indicated any time, and that the registration of transfer of ownership was completed under the preceding 000 won, not until the time of remittance, but the immediately following day of the balance payment under the above 00,000 collateral security contract; and (3) the above 000,000 collateral amount was transferred to 000,000 won for the above 00-200 collateral security account, not only the above 000 collateral security obligation was transferred to 00,000 won, but also the above 00-day collateral security obligation was transferred to 00,000 won for the above 00-day collateral security account; and (4) the existing 00-day collateral security obligation was transferred to 000,000 won for the above 0-day collateral security account to 000,0000 won for the above 0-day collateral security account.

C) Ultimately, each of the instant real estate is a title trust property, 000’s responsible property premised on that it is a title trust property.

The defendant's assertion that does not belong is without merit.

3. Judgment on the defendant's bona fide assertion

In light of the fact that the actual owner of each real estate of this case is 000, and that the defendant's transfer of it does not decrease in the liability property of 000, and that only the title of ownership was inevitably entrusted due to the fact that 000 owned another apartment bonds, and that the date of the sales contract of this case is 1-2 years from the date of establishment of tax liability for the plaintiff of 000, and that 000 as well as after the sales contract of this case is actually managing each of the real estate of this case, the defendant argued to the purport that he was not aware that he would harm the plaintiff as the creditor at the time of the sales contract of this case, but the above argument of the defendant is insufficient to recognize the defendant's good faith.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.