a debtor’s donation of property to another person in excess of his/her obligation constitutes a fraudulent act, except in extenuating circumstances.

If a debtor donated his/her own property to another person while in excess of his/her obligation, such act would constitute a fraudulent act unless there are special circumstances.

Article 405 of the Civil Code Revocation

2017 Doz. 4019 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Lee 00-1

ThisA has been repaid due to loans made to KimCC around 1993.

The Monetary Payment Commission cannot be seen as a gift act. In addition, KimCC remitted money to Defendant A.

C. It cannot be deemed that there was a concurrence with the intent to grant grant free of charge.

(b) the existence of preserved claims;

Tax liabilities shall be for the establishment of such tax liabilities when the requirements for taxation prescribed by law are satisfied.

Tax authorities or taxpayers shall be established as a matter of course without the need to do any special act;

Since there is no need for the obligor to recognize the fulfillment of taxation requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Nu279, Jan. 22, 1985; 2008Da84458, May 14, 2009). Income tax is naturally established without any separate procedure of the tax authority or the taxpayer when the taxable period ends (Article 21(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

On the other hand, income tax on the transfer margin of assets shall accrue for the month when the amount serving as the tax base occurs.

The liability for payment on the last day of the month in which the transfer date belongs is abstract (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu7887, Mar. 23, 1993). It is required that in principle, a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation was incurred prior to the commission of a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that at the time of a fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship which forms the basis of the establishment of a claim, and that the claim should be established in the nearest legal relationship, and where a claim has been realized in the nearest future.

The obligee’s right of revocation may become a preserved claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da76426, Feb. 23, 2012).

In light of the above legal principles, each global income tax of paragraphs 1 through 3 is terminated in the taxable period.

Since the tax liability was established at the end of 2011, 2012, and 2013, the tax liability was established on the other hand, on the other hand, No. 4

(5) Each transfer income tax shall be paid abstractly on the last day of the month in which the amount of tax base occurs.

Since the transfer income tax under paragraph (4) is established as of May 31, 2014; (5) transfer income tax was established as of July 31, 2014; (4) transfer income tax was established as of July 31, 2014; and (5) transfer income tax was imposed on KimCC on July 31, 2014; and (3) transfer income tax was established as of August 31, 2016; and (4) transfer income tax was established as of August 31, 2016; and (5) transfer income tax was established as of August 31, 2016; and (4) transfer income tax was established as of August 31, 2016; and (5) transfer income tax was imposed on KimCC; and (5) transfer income tax was established as of August 31, 2016; and (5) Plaintiff’s obligee’s right of revocation against each of the DefendantCC’s respective monetary claims against each of the Plaintiff’s PCC.

C. Whether the fraudulent act is constituted

1) Relevant legal principles

If the debtor's juristic act, etc. is alleged to be a fraudulent act and the revocation thereof is sought, the creditor

The existence of a preserved claim and a debtor's juristic act, etc., as well as the existence thereof;

of the debtor's intent to commit a fraudulent act, such as that the debtor's insolvency has occurred.

In cases where the joint security of other creditors is reduced by making a repayment according to the principal place of debt to a specific creditor under excess of debt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da59092, Apr. 23, 2004), such repayment does not constitute a fraudulent act as a matter of principle unless the debtor, in collusion with some creditors, made a repayment with the intent to prejudice other creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da62167, Jun. 15, 2006). Meanwhile, in cases where a creditor seeking revocation of a fraudulent act claims a donation of money to a beneficiary to the debtor, it is asserted that the beneficiary is a donation of money to be paid to the existing creditor, which constitutes a denial of creditor's assertion, and thus, in order to be recognized as a fraudulent act, the act of paying the money constitutes a donation, and the burden of proof is asserted as a fraudulent act (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da62867, May 28, 2007).

2) Whether Defendant A and the Plaintiff were leased

Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 9, 11, and 14 and acknowledged by the purport of the whole pleadings

In full view of the following circumstances, Defendant A has not lent to KimCC.

It is reasonable to see that it is.

① Defendant A lent money to KimCC at the time presumed in around 1993. As such, Defendant A claimed that payment was made by KimCC to Defendant A, Defendant A was made, but Defendant A did not make specific statements about the date of loan, amount of loan, period of repayment, interest rate, etc.

② According to Defendant Lee Dong-A’s assertion, the amount loaned by Defendant Lee Dong-A to KimCC is approximate.

The level of KRW 1.5 billion is very rare and it is difficult to believe that Defendant A and KimCC have lent a large amount of KRW 1.5 billion as business funds, without preparing a loan certificate, considering the fact that Defendant A and KimCC are in a money-related relationship.

③ objective financing to acknowledge that Defendant AA lent to KimCC

There is no data.

④ The lapse of August 2014, when the time of claiming that Defendant AA lent the amount of KRW 786,600,000 to Defendant AA on or around 1993, there exists a interval of at least 20 years. Moreover, it is inconsistent with the common sense that Defendant A had not taken any measures to receive a large amount of money exceeding KRW 1.5 billion for a period of at least 20 years.

3) Whether each monetary payment by KimCC against Defendant Lee-A constitutes a donation

According to the evidence A No. 14, Defendant A received money from the KimCC.

In addition to the fact that the KimCC has claimed that the money paid to Defendant Lee In-A was money attributed to itself, the fact that it was transferred to another account, EF, and Table 00 or withdrawn in cash, and that it was not transferred from the account of Defendant Lee In-A to the account of KimCC, and that the money paid to Defendant Lee In-A is money to be attributed to itself, it is reasonable to deem that the KimCC was a donation (hereinafter referred to as "the donation of each monetary payment to Defendant Lee In-A" in this case).

4) Whether KimCC was in excess of its liability at the time of donation of this case

A) If the debtor donated his/her property to another person under excess of his/her obligation, special circumstances

Unless there are circumstances, such an act constitutes a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da538, May 31, 2007).

Supreme Court Decisions 28686; 2014Da41575 Decided October 27, 2014, etc.

(b)each entry in Gap evidence, Gap evidence, evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11, and take all the pleadings;

Comprehensively taking account of whether or not, the positive and negative properties of the KimCC on August 28, 2014 and August 29, 2014 are as follows:

C) As above, KimCC is actively holding a small property at the time of the instant donation to Defendant Lee Dong-A.

Since each donation of KRW 400,00,000, and KRW 386,60,000,000 to Defendant LeeA while exceeding the property, each donation of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, barring any special circumstance, and the intention of the KimCC to understand is presumed.

D. Determination as to the bona fide assertion by Defendant AA

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary was unaware of the fact that the beneficiary was a fraudulent act.

Recognizing that the beneficiary was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act, and that the beneficiary had the burden of proof at that time.

objective and acceptable evidence, etc. shall be supported by the debt, and

only a unilateral statement of a person or a statement that is merely a third party's prosecution, etc., the party to such fraudulent act

The judgment of the lower court that the beneficiary was in good faith should not be readily concluded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da204, Jul. 4, 2006).

61280 Judgment)

ThisA only received a loan, and thus, in good faith as to the fraudulent act of KimCC.

as seen earlier, each of the monetary payments by KimCC against Defendant Lee Dong-A as alleged to the effect that such payment was made.

and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant A had acted in good faith.

this part of the Defendant AA’s assertion is rejected.

E. Sub-committee

If so, each gift agreement between Defendant AA and KimCC is revoked as a fraudulent act.

and to the extent that the original state shall be restored to the original state, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 786,60,000 and this shall not apply to the plaintiff

Delay damage calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day after the determination date to the day of full payment.

(2) If the principal claim of the Plaintiff against the Defendant A is reasonable; and

In respect of the conjunctive claim made by thisA, no separate determination shall be made.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant BB

A. Judgment on the main claim

(i) the existence of the preserved claim

As seen in Section 2-A of the above, each tax of paragraphs 1 through 5 against the plaintiff KimCC

The defendant KimCC's transfer income tax claim following the sale of the second real estate in this case under paragraph (6) and

The right of revocation in respect of KRW 44,700,000 paid on November 1, 2014 to thisB shall be subject to the preserved claim

shall be eligible.

2) Whether the fraudulent act was constituted

A) Whether the payment of money to Defendant B by KimCC constitutes a donation

To be recognized as a fraudulent act as described in paragraph (2)(b) above.

that the act of payment of such money constitutes a gift shall be proved, and shall be proved to that effect.

Liability is on the part of the assertion of fraudulent act.

Modern, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone to Defendant BB by KimCC

It is insufficient to recognize that the act of supply is a gift, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (or by mistake).

According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments 1 and 3 evidence, Defendant B may recognize the fact that Defendant B remitted money exceeding KRW 200 million from 204 to 2009 to 300,000.

According to the above facts of recognition, defendant BB shall transfer money to the original DoD in a manner that the defendant B transfers money to the original DoD.

There is sufficient room to view that the above money was lent to net).

B) The payment of money to Defendant BB by KimCC was in collusion and was a fraudulent act.

Whether it is reasonable or not

The Plaintiff’s intent that KimCC’s monetary payment to Defendant BB would prejudice other creditors.

As a repayment with intent, it constitutes a fraudulent act.

The debtor, especially in collusion with some of the creditors, has the intention to harm other creditors.

Whether payment has been made or not must be proved by the person asserting the fraudulent act, which shall be the beneficiary.

the debtor's claim against the debtor is actually existing, and the beneficiary is paid by the debtor.

amount, relationship with debtor and beneficiary, debtor's ability to repay and recognition of beneficiary;

Acts of beneficiaries before and after payment, the circumstances of debtors and beneficiaries at the time of payment, and the circumstances of payment, etc.

Determination ought to be made by comprehensively taking into account the anti-state circumstances (Supreme Court Decision 2004Da455 delivered on March 25, 2005)

10985, see, e.g., Decision 10985)

In full view of the following facts: (a) it is difficult to view Defendant BB as the excessive higher amount of claims repaid by KimCC; and (b) it appears that Defendant B and DoD continued to engage in monetary transactions and Defendant BB had a claim on the loan to KimCC; and (c) it is insufficient to recognize that the KimCC performed its repayment with intent to harm other creditors in collusion with Defendant BB, even if there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the entries in the evidence Nos. 7 through 9, and 14 were insufficient.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. Determination on the conjunctive claim

The Plaintiff’s preliminary return of the loan or unjust enrichment to Defendant B

45,700,000 won is claimed by Defendant B against the Plaintiff. However, Defendant B claimed by the Plaintiff 45,700,000 won

There is no specific argument or evidence to prove that the obligation to return is satisfied, and the preliminary claim is also accepted.

subsection (1) of this section.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Lee Dong-A is justified, and the defendant Lee B-B

The primary and conjunctive claims against A are all dismissed as they are without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.

October 18, 2018

November 29, 2018

1. The contract for the donation of KRW 400,00,000 concluded on August 28, 2014 and KRW 386,60,00,000, which was concluded on August 29, 2014 between Defendant A and KimCC shall be revoked. Defendant A shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by the annual rate of KRW 786,00,000 and KRW 5% per annum from the day following the date this decision became final and conclusive to the day of full payment. 2. The Plaintiff’s primary and conjunctive claims against Defendant BB are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant AA is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant BB, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

Main purport of the claim

The contract for donation of KRW 45,700,000,000 entered into on November 4, 2014 between the order Paragraph (1) and the defendant B and the defendant B shall be revoked. The defendant B shall pay to the plaintiff 45,700,000 and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the date the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of full payment. The preliminary claim is filed.

Based on the return of loans or unjust enrichment, Defendant A shall pay to the Plaintiff 786,60,000 won, Defendant B shall pay 45,700,000 won with the interest of 5% per annum until the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the following day to the full payment date.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The relationship between the parties

The plaintiff is a person who has a tax claim against KimCC. The defendant AA is the father of EM, the wife of EM, the son of KimCC, and the defendant BB is the partner of EM.

B. Plaintiff’s establishment of a tax claim against KimCC

1) KimCC did not report the real estate rental income accrued from the land in Gyeyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, 00, 431-2, 431-4, and 431-8, from the year 2011 to the year 2013. Accordingly, the chief of the tax office of Jeonyang-gu, the Plaintiff-gu.

On May 7, 2015, 2015, KimCC notified the payment of the total of KRW 1,694,720 won for three global income tax. 2) On May 9, 2014, KimCC sold the land owned by it and received the purchase price on May 29, 2014, the land owned by it 00 Dongyang-gu 471-6, 471-7, Soyang-gu 00 Dong-gu 471-8 on May 29, 2014. On January 11, 2016, the former head of the tax office issued a notice to the KimCC to pay the transfer income tax of KRW 159,675,690 (including additional tax) on July 15, 2014, the KimCC received the sale price and received the sale price of the land in Yangyang-dong 00 Dong-dong 432-4309.

4) On August 27, 2014, the KimCC sold the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) to the Republic of Korea and to the East-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, 00, 432-27, and received KRW 805,565,343 in total from the purchase price of the instant real estate as a deposit passbook in the name of KimCC.

5) On September 15, 2014, the KimCC sold the land of 00 Dongyang-gu 471-1 (hereinafter referred to as “second-class movable property of this case”) to the Z. The purchase price of KRW 44,700,000 in the instant second real property was received as a deposit passbook in the name of the KimCC, and on October 10, 2014, the land of 00 Dongyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, 00, 431-2, 431-8, and 471-9 was received.

6) On July 30, 2016, the former Director of the Tax Office notified the KimCC of the payment of capital gains tax of KRW 1,283,386,587 (including additional taxes) to the former Director of the Tax Office. KimCC still has not paid the said tax. As of August 2017, the establishment date of the Plaintiff’s taxation claims against KimCC, the amount of claims at the time of establishment, and the details of the payment of national taxes in arrears of KimCC as of August 2017 are as follows (hereinafter referred to as “the following tax claims”). The dispositive act of KimCC remitted KRW 1,100,000 on August 28, 2014, KRW 386,60,000 on August 29, 2014, and KRW 1,000 on August 30, 2014, including the Plaintiff’s respective tax claims number of KRW 40,000 on August 15, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “A”).

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A with respect to this case

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The transfer of KRW 400,00,000,000 on August 28, 2014, and KRW 386,60,000,00 on August 29, 2014 by KimCC to Defendant Lee In-A shall be revoked as a gift or title trust act.

Even if the act of donation is not a gift act, the KimCC's performance in collusion with the defendant A, must be revoked.

2) Defendant Lee Dong-A’s assertion