It constitutes a fraudulent act, not division of property and consolation money.

It is reasonable to deem that the act of an obligor in excess of his/her obligation did not liquidate the tax claim of the case and donated the real estate of this case to the Defendant to the Defendant without settling the pertinent tax claim in divorce with the Defendant is a fraudulent act detrimental to the obligee under the circumstances in which the claim for

○ Revocation

AA Insurance Co., Ltd. (trade name before change: AA Insurance Co., Ltd.)

○ ○

January 22, 2014

February 12, 2014

1. The contract of donation concluded on September 3, 2012 between the Defendant and Nonparty AA with respect to 00 00 -00 -00 -00 -,00 -,00 -,00 -,00 - is revoked

2. The Defendant shall comply with the procedures for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on September 4, 2012 by the registry office of the district court with respect to the said real estate by AA.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

(a) AA’s compensation receipt and imposition of capital gains tax;

(1) around May 26, 190, AA created a right to collateral security with respect to land of 00 -00 - 00 -00 - 00 - 00 - (hereinafter “instant land”) from BB around May 26, 199. On January 2006, AA received compensation equivalent to the O won as the said land was expropriated.

(2) On June 1, 2010, the Plaintiff notified AA of the total amount of O and additional charges (hereinafter “instant tax claim”) including transfer income tax on unregistered, unreported, and Unreported on October 1, 201 after recognizing that the actual owner of the instant land was AA in the review of the legality of the transfer income tax on BB.

(3) Although AA filed a petition for adjudication or administrative litigation against the instant taxation claim, it lost the purport that AA had to be deemed to have sold unregistered property in the form of a collateral security, the said judgment was final and conclusive by the Supreme Court on April 25, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff’s seizure, divorce and disposal of AA

(1) As the Plaintiff did not pay the instant taxation claim, on February 7, 2012, the Plaintiff seized 00-Gu 000 Dong 00000 owned by the AA (hereinafter “instant house”) and : the date of acquisition.

(2) On January 24, 1974, the Defendant, after married with AA, moved to his/her domicile on April 10, 2012 and applied for confirmation of intention of divorce under the Family Court 00 on September 13, 2012 after having moved to his/her domicile on April 10, 2012, and agreed on October 16, 2012.

(3) On September 4, 2012, AA completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of a donation made on September 3, 2012 (hereinafter “the donation contract in this case”) by September 3, 2012 with respect to the real estate of 00 Gun, 00 Gun 00 Gun 000 Gun 0000 Gun 0000 (the acquisition date: October 5, 1945; March 29, 1965; hereinafter “the instant real estate”).

C. The instant real estate equivalent to KRW 41,00,000,000, and the instant real estate equivalent to KRW 75,729,400,00 of the officially announced land price at the time of the instant donation contract, as the insolvent of the AA, is a whole and there is no particular financial property. On the other hand, as a passive property, there is a tax liability equivalent to KRW 153,982,560 at the time of the closing of argument.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1, 6, 7 (if any)

Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff has the instant taxation claim against AA, such as transfer income tax (on January 31, 2006, the date of reversion), and as long as transfer income tax claim is recognized as preserved claim of obligee’s right of revocation, the amount of such transfer income tax claim shall accrue from the amount of such claim until the date of closing argument in fact

Since additional dues are also included (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da66753, Jun. 29, 2007). The instant taxation claim, including additional duties, until the closing of argument, becomes the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the taxation claim of this case was imposed excessively on the basis of wrong capital gains, so it is reasonable and invalid. However, it is not sufficient to recognize only the statement of Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 through 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 6, and such assertion is contrary to the res judicata of the final judgment.

B. Whether the AA is insolvent

Although the Defendant stated on November 20, 2013 that the market price of the real estate owned by AA was not properly reflected on the third date for pleading, the Defendant’s attorney reversed the purport of denying it. However, once a confession in court is established, it is not revoked unless it is proven that it was against the truth and due to mistake, and unless there is any evidence that conforms to the aforementioned circumstances that can be revoked, the Defendant’s assertion by the Defendant’s attorney regarding the insolvency of AA is rejected.

C. Whether a fraudulent act is established

(1) Even if a debtor in excess of his/her debt may reduce joint security against the general creditor by transferring a certain property to his/her spouse through division of property, such division of property is not subject to revocation by the creditor as a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance that may deem that such division of property is excessive beyond a considerable degree pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, but is not subject to revocation by the creditor. However, it cannot be deemed as a legitimate division of property as to excessive portion beyond a considerable degree (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da33258, Sept. 14, 2006).

On the other hand, the current marital property system is based on the separation between husband and wife system, and in principle, the obligations of each husband and wife are borne by each other. Thus, in cases where a husband and wife are divorced, in addition to ordinary family affairs, the obligations borne by one spouse to a third party during marriage are not subject to liquidation as an individual's obligation, in principle, in addition to ordinary family affairs, but when it is an obligation borne by it as a result of the formation and maintenance of common property, it shall be subject to liquidation. Even if specific assets acquired as a result of the obligation remain, if it is deemed that the act of bearing the obligation is for common interests of both husband and wife, it shall be deemed that it is accompanied by the formation and maintenance of common property during marriage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74900, Sept.

(2) On the other hand, while the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was the first divorce for the purpose of evading his/her obligation, there are somewhat doubtful circumstances in relation to the tax claim of this case, such as the process of litigation, the time of seizure, the cost of the household, and the time of divorce. However, it is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was the first divorce with AA for the purpose of evading his/her obligation.

However, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and evidence and the purport of evidence Nos. 4 and 9-1 through 3, and the land of this case, which is the basis for imposing the tax claim of this case, is acquired by AA during the marriage period with the defendant, and thus, the tax claim of this case, which is caused by the disposition, can also be liquidated as the debt incurred by the maintenance or improvement of the value of the above property. ② The defendant couple appears to have consumed all of the common living expenses incurred during the marriage period between 2012 and 2012 after the receipt of compensation for the land of this case. ③ Even if the real property of this case is acquired by AA before marriage and the defendant contributed significantly to the maintenance and reduction of the property, it seems that the contribution ratio does not exceed 50%, on the other hand, even if the land of this case or its compensation is claimed for division of property, it must be deducted as transfer income tax, and ④ it is reasonable to see that the defendant's active liquidation of the property of this case, such as the claim for consolation money, is insufficient to the defendant.

In addition, according to the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the defendant couple's husband and wife was aware of all the circumstances from the time of acquisition of the land of this case to the time of tax appeal (including the fact of unregistered acquisition subject to heavy taxation), and that they concluded the gift contract of this case as the seizure of the house of this case enters the house of this case and lost in the administrative litigation (the first instance court), and it is presumed that AA knew that at least at least at the time of the donation contract of this case, the agreement on division of property and consolation money, which is premised on divorce, may prejudice the plaintiff, who is the creditor, and that the defendant's intention of th

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the gift contract of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act without considering the ratio of division of property, etc., and the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of ownership transfer completed with respect to the real estate of this case to AA.

3. Conclusion

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