Attached Claims Collection Agency

Whether they are subject to seizure claims collection;

2015 grouped 208669 Collections

Korea

Jeonn 00

July 9, 2015

August 27, 2015

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 23,00,000 won with interest rate of 20% per annum from April 8, 2015 to the day of complete payment. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is the mother of Nonparty 00.

B. The plaintiff's lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act against the defendant

1) On April 14, 201, this0: (a) transferred 00 apartment units to Nonparty 100, Seoul Gangdong-gu, to Nonparty 200 won; and (b) on May 31, 201, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay capital gains tax on the Plaintiff as of May 31, 201. On August 2, 2012, 201, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the payment of capital gains tax of KRW 00 (including local income tax). (b) On June 2, 2011, 200 (hereinafter referred to as “the first remittance”); (c) on June 13, 2011, 200 won (hereinafter referred to as “the second remittance”); and (d) on June 23, 2011, the Defendant repaid KRW 10 to the National Bank on June 2, 2011, each of the above loans that he/she received from 00, and the Defendant repaid the said KRW 2013.

3) The Plaintiff’s taxation claims against the Defendant 100 as the preserved right.

The act of remitting KRW 1,200 to the defendant while filing a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act constitutes the act of donation, and thereby, the act of remitting KRW 1,200 to the defendant constitutes an act of donation, which led to the omission of KRW 00 in excess of the obligation, and the defendant's bad faith, which is the beneficiary, is presumed to be presumed, among the contract

The gift contract of 00 won and June 13, 201 should be revoked, and the defendant, a beneficiary, should pay 00 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff in lieu of restitution.

4) In the above lawsuit, the Defendant asserted that 00 won, which was remitted by 00, was not donated to 00 won, but borrowed from 00, and the above court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on October 16, 2014, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

① The instant act of remitting the first and second transfers shall be deemed as a contract for a monetary loan for consumption, not a donation contract (hereinafter referred to as “the instant contract for a monetary loan for consumption”).

② At the time of the instant monetary loan agreement, this cannot be said to have been in excess of the obligation exceeding the negative. This is because the remainder of the instant deposit 00 after the second remittance is KRW 00,00, the Plaintiff’s preserved claim amount formally lowers the amount of the Plaintiff’s preserved claim. However, after each transfer act, the Defendant paid part of the sales deposit (00) of the officetel 1 purchased by subrogation of the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff, after the said transfer act, and the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 00 from June 6, 201 to August 11, 201. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 00 from 00 on June 6, 2011 and each of the said money was repaid on August 11, 201, each of the above was clearly possible to recover, and each of the above transfers was clearly included in the 00 active property in determining whether each of the instant transfers was a fraudulent act. Therefore, if each of the instant transfers was made based on each of the instant acts, it shall be invalidated as excess of KRW 00.

③ Therefore, it is difficult to see that the remittance act of this case against the Defendant by 00 constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the general creditor’s property liability, including the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant on the premise that the remittance act of this case constitutes a fraudulent act is without merit without examining the remaining requirements in the revocation of the fraudulent act.

C. When the Plaintiff’s claim for fraudulent act against the Defendant was dismissed, the Plaintiff seized KRW 00 of the loan claim against the Defendant under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act on November 3, 2014, and the said notification of seizure was served on November 7, 2014 on the part of the Defendant.

After receiving the notification of seizure from the Plaintiff, the Defendant received the notification of seizure from the Plaintiff, and then on June 18, 2015, to the Plaintiff:

On June 25, 2015, a total of 00 won was remitted, and repaid the total of 00 won. Determination is made as follows: (a) the fact that there is no dispute with the recognition basis; (b) the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5-1, and 5-2; and (c) the purport

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who subrogated 00, a creditor of the loan under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act, the balance of the loan under the instant monetary loan agreement (i.e., principal KRW 00 - KRW 00 - KRW 00 which was partially repaid by the Defendant upon payment of the officetel purchase price in lieu of 00 - KRW 00 which was directly repaid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff) and the damages for delay.

B. Defendant’s defense of repayment

The Defendant asserted that, from January 2013, 200, 100 to November 23, 2014, the Defendant paid 23 million won (=1 million won per month x 23 months) to the Plaintiff’s household expenses for at least 23 months from the time when the Plaintiff attached the Plaintiff’s loan claim of 00 to November 2014, the Defendant asserted that this case’s loan obligation was repaid by paying 13 million won (=1 million won per month x 23 months) on the ground that the entries in the evidence in the evidence in the evidence in subparagraphs 1 through 12 are insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s above repayment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 00 won and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 8, 2015 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified.