It seems difficult to recognize as a gift because it appears that it was remitted from the defendant's passbook to business purposes.

In full view of the fact that the defendant was transferred from the head of the Tong to China for business purposes, and that the departure from China was recognized, it is difficult to recognize that ParkB donated to the defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

2011Revocation of Fraudulent Act 8743

Korea

IsaA

July 18, 2012

August 22, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The contract of donation concluded on August 24, 2007 between the defendant and ParkB shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 53 million won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The plaintiff, as a tax office, has a broad right to inquire about the property status of ParkB as a tax office, and as a result, after inquiring about the property of ParkB around November 15, 2008, on January 19, 2009, the seizure was made between 000, OB, OB, YB, YB, and OB, OB, YB, YB, YB, and OB, YB, YB, YB, YOB, YB, YB, and the plaintiff was aware of the fraudulent act at January 19, 2009. Therefore, the lawsuit of this case filed at the time when one year elapsed thereafter should be dismissed as the time limit for filing the lawsuit.

B. Determination

Even if the plaintiff, the creditor, was asked about the financial status of ParkB, it is difficult to find that the plaintiff was aware of the gift between ParkB and the defendant subject to the cancellation, and there is no evidence to recognize it, and the defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

ParkB notified 00 won to the third party in 2006 as capital gains tax, while the plaintiff notified 00 won to the third party in 2006, the delinquent tax amount including additional dues was 000 won because the defendant did not pay it by the filing date of the lawsuit, and on July 2, 2007, ParkB transferred 000 won to a third party at the port of the wife population No. 0000,000 OOB at the port of the wife's own possession on July 2, 2007, after receiving intermediate payment on August 24, 2007, and then received 00 won with the defendant's national bank account, so it may be recognized that ParkB donated the above money to the defendant, and at that time ParkB had been in excess of the debt, so such gift contract between the defendant and ParkB should be revoked as a fraudulent act that reduces the debtor's responsible property.

B. Determination

According to the records in Eul evidence 2, the defendant can be found to have received KRW 50 million from KimO on August 24, 2007, and it is recognized by the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the defendant and ParkB are as follows. ① The defendant and ParkB are married couple, ② the defendant have received the above KRW 00 from KimO as the defendant's passbook upon request of the defendant by the ParkB who deals with Chinese art works, etc., and deposited the above KRW 00 with the Chinese money, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant had used the above KRW 500 with the Chinese money for business funds and expenses. On August 31, 2007, the defendant's passbook was transferred to China, and it was recognized that ParkB had left China on August 25, 2007, and there is no evidence to recognize that the gift was 500,000 won or more.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the fact that there was a gift contract, which is a fraudulent act, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.