It is not sufficient to recognize that the donation contract was a fraudulent act at the time of seizure.

Although it is argued that the limitation period has elapsed since the plaintiff filed a lawsuit after the lapse of 3 years from the time of seizure despite the knowledge of the donation at the time of seizure, it is insufficient to recognize that the donation contract was a fraudulent act at the time of seizure, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

2012 Ghana70474 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Maximum XX et al.

October 9, 2012

November 2, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The agreement on the gift made on July 21, 2008 between Defendant LA and KimB is revoked. Defendant LA shall implement each procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on July 22, 2008 by the court Bosung registry office, which completed on July 22, 2008 by receipt No. 16274 of the above real estate, and Defendant KimCC shall implement each procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on August 17, 2010 by receipt No. 10520 of the above registry office.

1. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

As of July 21, 2008, the Plaintiff had a transfer income tax claim of KRW 295,062,90 against KimB. However, inasmuch as KimB was in excess of the obligation by making a donation and registration of transfer of each real estate listed in the separate sheet on July 21, 2008 to the Defendant LA who is the wife, the above donation contract between KimB and the Defendant LAB should be revoked as a fraudulent act. The above donation contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant LA should be revoked, and the transfer of ownership, etc. in the name of Defendant KimCC should be revoked.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the exclusion period Do and argument

The defendant, among the real estate listed in the attached Form on October 21, 2008, seized 4431mm2 in Y 37m2 in Y, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and cancelled on February 4, 2010. Thus, the defendant filed the lawsuit in this case after 3 years and 6 months have elapsed from the time of seizure despite having been aware of the above donation at the time of seizure. Thus, the lawsuit in this case was asserted to have exceeded the exclusion period. Thus, according to the evidence No. 1-4, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff seized the real estate that he transferred to YA as above. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff knew that the above donation contract was a fraudulent act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

B. Judgment on the merits

As a result of the order to submit financial data to the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was omitted from the debt excess under the above donation contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.