Action for Revocation of Fraudulent Act

In the absence of special circumstances, the act of disposing of the current property while the plaintiff was liable for the debt constitutes a fraudulent act, and the intention to commit the act is presumed to be a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration of Fraudulent Act

2013 Ghana 5176 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

NewA

September 4, 2013

September 25, 2013

1. With respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet, and

A. The sales contract concluded on April 29, 2009 between the defendant and the non-party B and the non-party B is revoked, and

B. The Defendant shall comply with the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed by the Daejeon District Court of Daejeon District on April 29, 2009 as the receipt of No. 17132, the registration of ownership transfer to Nonparty B.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

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

(1) ① On Nov. 30, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired the OOOOO transfer income tax claim against Nonparty B (hereinafter “instant tax claim”) on Nov. 30, 2008, and ② This BB is presumed to constitute a fraudulent act, barring special circumstances, while the Plaintiff sold or purchased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on Apr. 29, 2009, for which the Daejeon District Court registered the ownership transfer as the receipt No. 17132 on Apr. 29, 2009, and the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 1 through No. 3.

(2) On this point, the defendant asserts that ① this case's real estate was transferred to the defendant by payment in lieu of payment to CC, which is the defendant's wife and his father, and this case's real estate is not considered a fraudulent act, and the defendant is a bona fide beneficiary, and ② the real estate in this case's present real estate is already established and provisionally seized, and its disposal does not constitute a fraudulent act, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion should be rejected.

(1) ① Even if this BB bears the obligation to thisCC as the defendant asserts, and unlike the case where the obligor, in excess of the obligation, transfers the active property to some creditors as payment in kind, to other creditors, in principle, unlike the case where the obligor performs the obligation to a specific obligee, the act becomes a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da2718, Sept. 30, 2010). There is no evidence to prove that this BB bears the obligation to thisCC, and since it is presumed that the beneficiary's bad faith is presumed in a fraudulent act revocation suit, the beneficiary is liable to prove his good faith (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74621, Jul. 10, 2008), and the obligor's act of transferring the real property with the obligor's good faith, and the obligor's positive maximum debt amount is not established, and if the amount of the claim exceeds the value of the immovable property as a fraudulent act, the obligee's joint collateral value cannot be viewed as a fraudulent act.

(b) Methods of reinstatement;

Therefore, on April 29, 2009 between the defendant and the BB on the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the sales contract on April 29, 2009 should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer on real estate listed in the separate sheet to the BB.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.