The defendant's defense of this safety is without merit, and the sale of land by AA in excess of its obligation constitutes a fraudulent act.

The defendant's defense of this safety cannot be accepted, and the sale of land by AA to the defendant in excess of his/her obligation constitutes a fraudulent act converted from money which is easily converted into money to consume general property belonging to the joint security of the general creditor, including the plaintiff.

Article 406 of the Civil Act, the obligee's right of revocation

2013 Gaz. 114613 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

○ ○

June 27, 2014

July 11, 2014

1. With respect to the area of OO-gun O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-use:

(a) cancel the sales contract concluded on January 14, 201 between AA and the Defendant; and

B. The Defendant shall comply with the procedures for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on January 18, 201 by the registry office of the district court (hereinafter “A”) and completed on January 18, 2011.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. On January 14, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that the sales contract of January 14, 201 with respect to the land specified in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition between AA and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”) should be revoked as a fraudulent act, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff conducted an investigation into the property of AA within 1-2 months from August 31, 201, for which the Plaintiff urged payment to AA, and that the said sales contract was immediately known as a fraudulent act. However, the instant lawsuit was filed one year after it was filed, and thus, the limitation period and its illegality are asserted.

B. Therefore, if the Plaintiff knew of the aforementioned fraudulent act within 1 to 2 months from August 31, 201, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fraudulent act. Rather, according to the items of Gap 5, 6, 7-1 to 7, 9, 10-1, 10-2, 11, and 12, the tax office affiliated with the Plaintiff concluded on September 23, 201 that it would make a non-property disposal and follow-up management after it was conducted on the 20th anniversary of the fact that the tax office reported the transfer of the land to the 3rd 20 O's account under the name of 30 O's 2O's 20 O's 201, 3OO's 20 O's 20 OO's 20 OO's 30 OO's 20 OO's 20 OO's 20 OO's 20 OOO's 200 O

According to the legal principles stated in the Supreme Court Decision 2010Da71684 Decided January 13, 201, etc., the "date when the creditor, who is the starting point of the exclusion period, becomes aware of the cause of revocation" in exercising the creditor's right of revocation means the date when the debtor becomes aware of the fact that he/she committed a fraudulent act while being aware that he/she would prejudice the creditor. This is insufficient to simply recognize the fact that the debtor performed a disposal act of the property, and it is necessary to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and to know the fact that the debtor had an intent to injure the debtor. Therefore, even as soon as possible, the plaintiff was aware of the cause of revocation around May 2, 2013, when he/she became aware of the fact that AA performed a transaction with the defendant who is a relative relationship, and the details of the property possession by the plaintiff immediately after the disposition on default, and as long as AA had possessed the real estate until that time, it seems that the other party's defense and investigation were the most difficult.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments made by Gap 1-3, 4-1, and 4-2, the head of a tax office under his/her control issued a payment notice to AA on August 1, 201 with regard to the OO of capital gains tax in 2010 established on April 30, 2010 until August 31, 2011. However, AA did not pay the above capital gains tax at present. AA sells the land described in paragraph (1) of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case") to the defendant, who is the spouse of the EEE, who is the above duty of taxation, on January 14, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "AA's spouse"), as described in paragraph (1) of this case, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 18, 2011 (O:O's property value), while the tax claim of this case was excluded from the tax claim of this case as at the time of the above O14.

According to the above facts, AA’s selling of the instant land to the Defendant in excess of its obligation constitutes a fraudulent act with ease to consume general property belonging to the joint security of the general creditor, including the Plaintiff, and thus, the above sales contract should be revoked, and the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration as to the instant land to the original state.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

In regard to this, the defendant did not know that the above contract was a fraudulent act. However, it is not sufficient to recognize it only with the descriptions of Eul 1, 2, 3, 4-1, and 4-2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the above defense is without merit.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.