by transferring ownership of the sole real property and resulting in excess of the liability.

Since the payment of money to the defendant according to the gift contract and the sales contract, and the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate owned by the defendant has been completed, it constitutes a fraudulent act, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be a beneficiary.

2012 Gohap 101938 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

EAA

October 9, 2012

October 23, 2012

1. The contract between the defendant and KimB on the donation of KRW 000,000, which was concluded on September 10, 2007, and the contract on the sale of KRW 1,322,00,000 O-dong O-dong O-si, Leecheon-si.

2. The defendant, and the defendant

A. The plaintiff shall pay 00 won and 5% interest per annum to the day of full payment from the day following the day when the judgment of this case is finalized to the day of full payment.

B. In relation to the real estate stated in paragraph (1) to KimB, the Suwon District Court Leecheon District Court’s e-mail registry office of October 12, 2007, followed the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by No. 48197.

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

ARTICLE 1, and 2

1. Basic facts

A. KimB transferred DoD on June 4, 2007, and OB 00 to EE on July 4, 2007, OB 3,197 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "OB of this case"), and did not report capital gains tax on 3,197 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "OB of this case"), and notified KimB of March 17, 2010 at the time limit for payment to KRW 382,549,426 of capital gains tax, and on March 31, 2012, the amount of delinquent tax on the above transfer of KimB as of March 31, 2012, including additional dues and increased additional dues as listed below, reaches KRW 00 (hereinafter referred to as "the capital gains tax of this case").

B. On September 10, 2007, KimB paid KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as "the instant money") to the Defendant, the husband, before the divorceed on September 10, 2007, by means of transferring the money to the agricultural cooperative account in the name of the Defendant, and on October 12, 2007, on September 10, 2007, KimB completed the registration for transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on September 10, 2007, for the Defendant.

C. At the time of September 10, 2007, as active property of KimB, there was an amount equivalent to KRW 000,000 in total, and KRW 000 in total, of the real estate of this case as active property of KimB, and as a passive property, there was a tax obligation of KRW 000 in the transfer income tax of this case.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-sured facts, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 10, 11, and Eul evidence 7 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

According to Article 21 (1) and (2) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, in the case of income tax paid by scheduled return, the tax liability is established on the last day of the month in which the amount constituting the tax base occurs, and the capital gains tax liability imposed on KimB as the transfer of real estate, such as the OO Dong of this case by KimB was established on June 30, 2007, and the transfer income tax claim of this case against the plaintiff KimB is the preserved claim of this case. In addition, the amount of the preserved claim includes interest and delay damages incurred after the fraudulent act, and this legal principle also applies to the additional dues of national tax. Accordingly, it is recognized that KRW 00, which is the total amount of the transferred income tax claim of this case, is the preserved claim of this case. Furthermore, the plaintiff asserted that the taxation claim of KRW 259,828,287 also constitutes the preserved claim of this case, but the transfer income tax liability of this case was established on September 30, 2007, which is the basic taxation claim for cancellation of this case.

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

1) Whether a gift contract is concluded

The plaintiff asserts that the payment of the money in this case should be considered to be a donation to the defendant, and the defendant asserts that KimB transferred the money in this case to the defendant's account only by opening and using the passbook in the name of the defendant while running the business, and that it is not a donation to the defendant. In light of the following circumstances recognized by KimB, that is, KimB and the defendant at around January 12, 2002, when KimB divorced on or around January 12, 2002, using the passbook in the name of the defendant for the business, the fact that KimB used the passbook in the name of the defendant for the business seems to be unusual in light of the empirical rule, and that the defendant was divided into the child support fund at the time of divorce, and made the passbook in the name of the defendant to preserve it, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this ( even if the defendant entered in the document No. 1-1 of evidence No. 1-2, the above defendant's name after the divorce of the above defendant in the name of the defendant in this case was established in the name of the defendant 2000.6.

2) Whether a sales contract for the instant real estate was concluded

The plaintiff asserted that KimB sold the real estate in this case to the defendant, and the defendant, at the time of divorce between KimB and the defendant, they received a large number of assets from the defendant by having KimB take charge of raising her sexual mine, but under the circumstances thereafter, KimB transferred the real estate acquired between them to the defendant as part of the compensation liability, and did not sell it. Even according to the above argument of the defendant, it appears to the purport that this is not a sale but a gift, and whether it is a gift or a gift of this case is a gift, there is no significant difference in the legal effect in the case seeking the revocation of a fraudulent act, and as seen above, there is no evidence regarding the defendant's assertion that the transfer of the real estate in this case was made on September 10, 2007 under the name of the defendant on September 10, 2007, and there is no other evidence regarding the defendant's assertion that the transfer of the real estate in this case was made on September 10, 2007.

(iii)the intent to commit fraudulent act and to commit suicide;

According to the above facts, KimB, and KimB, pursuant to the gift contract and sales contract in this case, paid the money in this case to the defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate in this case, which is the only real estate, thereby in excess of obligations, it is reasonable to view that both the donation contract and sales contract in this case constituted a fraudulent act, and that the plaintiff, the creditor, could be harmed by the above donation contract, and that the defendant, the beneficiary, is presumed to be malicious.

C. Judgment on the defendant's defense

As above, the defendant renounced Kim Dong-hun's custody and transferred the movable property of this case as compensation liability, so the sales contract of this case was not aware that the plaintiff was the creditor, and there was no evidence to acknowledge it, but there was no ground for the defendant's defense.

(d)Smallness;

Therefore, the gift contract and sales contract of this case must be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant, the beneficiary, shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 000 won which is the amount of this case and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment, and shall perform the procedure of cancellation registration, such as transfer of ownership, etc. as stipulated in Paragraph (b) of Article 2

3. Conclusion

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