Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Any contract entered into between the non-party company and the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) constitutes a fraudulent act.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

Daejeon District Court 2015Kahap105289

Each assignment contract constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus revoked, and the plaintiff and the designated parties CCC

of the Daejeon District Court in 133,827,100 won deposited by gold No. 1499 as the restoration to its original state

transfer the right of withdrawal to Defendant BB Construction, and the Republic of Korea (competent District Court Deposit Administration)

b) the obligation to notify the effect that the above claim was transferred.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's principal claim and the defendant D bank, and the counterclaim of the Republic of Korea are justified.

It is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

DD

Republic of Korea and 5

September 9, 2016

September 30, 2016

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

(a) AA on September 15, 201, Defendant BB Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant BB Construction”), the State;

Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, between the person involved in the case who is a food company and the corporation (the indication of the corporation is omitted)

In the case of KRW 150,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as "the case") for the lease deposit for the 21st and 6th floor (e.g., winter and two buildings) in Pyeongtaek-ro;

A lease contract was concluded with a lease deposit of KRW 400,000,000 for monthly rent.

B. Defendant BB Construction: (a) on November 30, 201, the Plaintiff (a party to the counterclaim as well as the designated party; (b) on November 30, 2011

The purpose of securing the wage claims between Defendant BB Construction and eight other workers, including the Plaintiff, is to secure the wage claims of Defendant BB Construction

(1) The notarial deed stating that the claim for the return of the lease deposit of this case is transferred was prepared, and this document was prepared.

On December 1, 2011, the notification of assignment of claims to AA has reached the notification.

C. Defendant BB Construction: (a) on November 30, 201, Defendant BB Construction collected the refund of the instant lease deposit from the Selected CCC.

Of the rights, KRW 120 million was transferred to AA on December 1, 2011. The notice of assignment of claims was given to AA on December 1, 201.

The assignment of claims in this case (hereinafter referred to as "transfer of claims in this case") reached (hereinafter referred to as "transfer of claims in this case").

D. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) bank, Korea and the remainder of the Defendants

The provisional attachment and pressure of the claim to return the lease deposit of this case after the notice of each assignment of claims is given.

The collection order, etc. is issued, and the specific details thereof are as follows:

E. The plaintiff DDR sought payment of the lease deposit of this case against AA

On February 27, 2015, the Daejeon District Court 2015 tea 1105 filed an application for payment order, and the above payment order was issued on February 27, 2015.

On March 25, 2015, it was finalized around March 25, 2015.

F. As above, AA conflicts with the notice of assignment of each of the instant claims and the provisional seizure of multiple claims.

On April 1, 2015, the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act, on the grounds of non-existence of claims and concurrent seizure

Pursuant to Paragraph 1, Daejeon District Court No. 1499 of 2015, Defendant BB Construction and Selection

J.CCC or the Plaintiff deducts the unpaid rent, management expenses, etc. from the lease deposit of this case.

Han 133,827,100 won was deposited (hereinafter referred to as "the deposit of this case").

G. Plaintiff DDR’s establishment on April 29, 2015 as the Sungwon District Court Branch 2015TT 5078

With respect to the right to claim restitution of the instant deposit money, an application for seizure of claims and issuance of a complete order shall be filed on May 2015.

1.To obtain the decision of the acceptance.

[Reasons for Recognition]

○ Defendant BB Construction,CC, EEEEE: Confession (Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act)

○ Defendant Credit Guarantee Fund, Korea, and D Bank: The absence of dispute, as well as Gap evidence 1 to 7

Statement, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts of recognition, each of the instant cases on December 1, 201 by a certificate with a certified fixed date.

The notice of transfer of rights was given prior to the Defendants’ order of provisional seizure, seizure and collection of claims, and seizure of claims.

Since the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case was reached by A.I.D., to the Plaintiff and A.C.

shall be applicable.

B. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

1) As to this, Defendant DB Bank, and the Credit Guarantee Fund shall be entitled to Plaintiff BB Construction’s DD and stuff.

The transfer of the lease deposit of this case against the termination shall be revoked as a fraudulent act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's right to claim for payment of deposit is not recognized.

However, if the debtor has committed a fraudulent act, the creditor shall have the court to revoke such fraudulent act.

a claim by the means of filing a lawsuit, and by the means of an offence or defense in a lawsuit,

No assertion is possible (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da11008 delivered on January 26, 1993), and even if so, this is applicable.

The court has rendered a judgment to revoke the claim assignment contract of this case by recognizing it as a fraudulent act.

this is merely a relative effect between the plaintiff and defendant DDA bank, and the judgment

under Article 407 of the Civil Code at the time of confirmation, the interests of all creditors of defendant BB Construction who are the debtor

Defendant BB Construction is only effective to recover the responsible property of Defendant BB Construction, and Defendant BB Construction Division

Each of the instant claims assignment contracts between the Plaintiff and the Appointed is retroactively null and void; and

Since the claim for payment of deposit money by the Plaintiff and the Appointed is not denied, the above Defendants’ claim for payment is not denied.

The argument is without merit.

2) Defendant Republic of Korea is a false claim on overdue wages asserted by the Plaintiff, and the Appointor Park.

Since there is no proof about the existence of a closed claim, each of the claims in this case cannot be proved.

The Do asserts that it is the most transfer and is null and void in accordance with Article 108(1) of the Civil Code.

In this case, only the evidence submitted by Defendant Republic of Korea can be transferred to each of the instant claims assignment.

It is insufficient to regard it as false declaration of intent as prescribed by the law, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

This part of the claim is without merit.

3. Determination on Defendant D Banks and Korea’s counterclaims

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

In full view of the statements in Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant state

A private bank shall pay a loan of at least KRW 1.237 billion to Defendant BB construction around November 201.

of this case as to Defendant BB construction, each of the following facts:

Recognition of the fact that there was a corporate tax claim established on December 31, 201, which was immediately after the assignment of claims.

such claim may be deemed to have occurred before the assignment of the claim of this case or at the time of the contract.

As a legal relationship is formed, there is a high probability that a claim will be established in the future;

The obligee's right of revocation shall be the preserved claim.

B. A debt exceeding that of Defendant BB Construction

Doctrine, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 1 and Kim Won-won

According to the results of the party's personal examination, the whole purport of the pleading is as follows: Defendant BB Construction's respective claims of this case

Around the time of concluding the Do contract, Defendant D Bank shall bear 1.237 billion won as to the loan obligations.

The claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case at the time of the above assignment of claims is the defendant.

Defendant BB Construction even after each of the claims assignment contracts of this case was made

immediately after the transfer contract of this case, the lease deposit of this case

A claim preservation measure, such as a large number of claims to be returned, has been taken, and the total amount of such claim is KRW 3 billion.

and Defendant BB Construction may conclude a transfer contract of each of the claims in this case.

It is reasonable to view that the debtor was in an insolvent state at the time.

As to this, Defendant BB Construction at the time of the instant assignment contract

From the beginning, there was a claim for the construction cost exceeding 15 billion won after receiving a successful contract for the construction work, and thus, this claim

The right to return the lease deposit was not the sole property of Defendant BB Construction, and Defendant BB Construction

It argues that it was not in excess of this obligation.

Defendant BB Construction Co., Ltd, even based on each description of evidence Nos. 8-1 to 5

With respect to five construction works between 2010 and 2011, before the assignment of each of the claims in this case is performed.

It can only be recognized that each construction has been awarded a successful tender by participating in the tendering procedure;

Furthermore, Defendant BB Construction had a claim for construction price by implementing each of the above construction contracts.

The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

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

1) Joint obligees with respect to general obligees by reducing liability assets

In the event that the shortage of security has been caused or deepened, the act is subject to revocation by the creditor.

whether the subject matter constitutes one of the entire responsible property of the debtor;

The degree of insolvency, the legitimacy of the economic purpose of the juristic act and the title of the act in question as a means of its realization.

Gong10,000,000,00

the extent of the perception of the parties to the risk of the lack of such security, and

by taking into account whether such action is ultimately an act detrimental to the general creditor.

the debtor in a state of excess of the obligation shall be determined in accordance with the

other claims, other than the original purpose of the obligations, with respect to the performance of the obligations only to some of them;

act of transferring any property to a specified creditor shall be deemed to have been performed by the debtor on the basis of the principal

in principle, in relation to other creditors, may constitute a fraudulent act in relation to the other creditors, except that

such act in light of the general standard of determination as seen above in the case of such act

Ultimately, the establishment of a fraudulent act may be denied if such act does not constitute an act detrimental to the general creditor.

Supreme Court Decision 2010Da52416 Decided March 10, 201, Supreme Court Decision 2010Da52411 Decided October 13, 2011

28045 (see, e.g., Decision 28045).

2) In the instant case, the Health Center and Defendant BB Construction on November 30, 201 and the Plaintiff and the Appointed CCC

In addition, the fact that each of the claims for the refund of the lease deposit of this case was transferred is as seen earlier, and Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 5

In full view of the parties’ results of the Party’s personal examination of each entry of evidence and Kim Won-won, the respondent shall be subject to the entire argument.

High BB Construction has aggravated financial standing from the beginning of 2011, and Defendant BB Construction has increased.

Any assets other than the claim for the return of the lease deposit, with the Plaintiff’s wage claim and preference

The fact that the claim for the return of the lease deposit in this case was transferred for the repayment of the claim of the sperm CCC

According to the above facts, Defendant BB Construction is determined by the following facts: (a) among many obligees in excess of debt; (b)

The entire claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case for the repayment of the debt to the Plaintiff and the Selected CCC

Since each transfer of claims in this case was made, each transfer of claims in this case shall be made, barring special circumstances.

In light of the circumstances, timing, etc. of the instant assignment contract, the Plaintiff shall be subject to deception.

It seems that there was a private road.

3) As to this, the Plaintiff’s purpose is to pay the Plaintiff wage claims by Defendant BB Construction.

As the assignment of the instant claim was made, it does not constitute a fraudulent act.

Any other creditors with respect to the whole property of the debtor which is a joint security of the creditors;

the debtor's property from the beginning, the creditor who has the right to receive repayment

(a) in the proceeding the status in which dividends may be given in preference to other creditors; and

Offering of payment in kind to creditors with preferential rights to payment, except in extenuating circumstances.

Since it cannot be viewed as impairing creditors' interests, it is not a fraudulent act (Supreme Court Decision 2008 February 14, 2008).

Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3357 Decided 2006Da3357 Decided 2006

in substance, the employee’s business or business, rather than whether the form of contract is an employment contract or a contract for employment.

whether labor has been provided to an employer for the purpose of wages in a subordinate relationship;

D. Determination of whether there is a subordinate relationship as above shall be made, and whether there is a subordinate relationship shall use the contents of the business.

person shall be governed by the rules of employment or service, and in the course of performing his/her duties

Whether the user properly directs and supervises, the hours and place of work shall be designated by the user.

Workers shall be bound by the workers, and the labor provider's own means of equipment, raw materials, working tools, etc.

A project on its own account, such as employing a third party or having a third party act on his/her own account;

A person himself/herself is able to engage in the risk, such as creating profits and causing losses through the provision of labor.

Whether or not there is a nature of remuneration, whether or not the nature of remuneration is the subject of work itself, and whether the basic salary or fixed wage is fixed;

Matters concerning remuneration, such as whether to withhold wage and salary income tax, and whether to provide labor;

Whether continuous performance and users are exclusive to them, and the degree thereof, and the Acts and subordinate statutes on the social security system

Determination by comprehensively taking into account various economic and social conditions, such as whether the status as a senior is recognized;

(2) The lower court determined that the Plaintiff was aware of the facts charged with the Plaintiff on February 13, 2014.

(1) The following facts are revealed by taking account of the overall purport of the evidence mentioned above

In the same situation, Kim Won-won, the representative director of defendant BB Construction, at the plaintiff's request, shall repay wage claims.

(A) The amount of claims for the refund of the lease deposit of this case shall be set up by the Plaintiff and the No. 1

The plaintiff et al. stated that the plaintiff et al. was able to do so, and that the plaintiff et al. were about the defendant BB construction.

The purport that the non-paid claim is held, the list of Plaintiffs and eight other persons, the details of unpaid benefits, etc. shall be stated.

is that there is a reason that they will be.

However, in addition to the above notarial deed, the plaintiff is employed by Defendant BB Construction.

Rules or the Regulations of Service (Personnel) shall apply, and considerable direction and supervision shall be given in the course of performing duties.

Defendant BB Construction, upon receipt of such order, has been bound by the time and place of the service;

whether the nature of remuneration is the nature of the work itself, or whether the basic salary or fixed wage has been determined;

Matters concerning remuneration, such as whether to withhold wage and salary income tax, and the continuation and history of the relationship to provide labor;

Whether or not the employee has exclusive responsibility and the degree thereof, and the Acts and subordinate statutes on the social security system are workers;

In light of the fact that materials to know whether the above was recognized are not submitted at all

In light of the above circumstances, Defendant BB in a subordinate relationship with the Plaintiff for the purpose of wages.

It is insufficient to recognize that the construction has provided labor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The argument based on the premise that Defendant BB Construction is an employee is a high-priced employee cannot be accepted.

4) In addition, at the time of the transfer of each of the instant claims, the Plaintiff: (a) Defendant BB Construction’s claim for the cost of construction work

The reason is that the beneficiary is not a bona fide beneficiary because it is not in excess of the debt.

The following are acknowledged by the purport of the whole pleading of the evidence mentioned above:

In other words, the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case by Defendant BB Construction on the same day in excess of its obligation.

(2) Defendant BB Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant BB”)

Under each of the instant assignment contracts, new funds were financed by the Plaintiff or Selection CCC.

in the absence of evidence to acknowledge the circumstances, such as that there is no other evidence to acknowledge the good faith of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's defense is without merit.

(d) Cancellation and reinstatement;

Therefore, the assignment of each of the claims in this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and the restoration of the original state shall be waived.

A third-party obligor shall execute and deposit monetary claims in competition with a health account and seizure of claims in accordance with the Act.

in the case of the third debtor's liability, however, the third debtor's creditor will cease to exist.

In reality, it is nothing more than the acquisition of the claim for payment of deposit money, not the collection of the claim.

Since the effect of Chapter 1 remains effective against the debtor's right to claim payment of deposit money, such fraudulent act

Restoration following the cancellation shall not be compensation for the equivalent value of the monetary payment, but a claim for payment of deposit money.

It should be transferred to the creditor of the third party (the creditor of the third party debtor) by means of transfer (Supreme Court Decision 2004 June 25, 2004).

[See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da9398 decided Feb. 2, 2008]

Ultimately, between the Plaintiff and Appointed CCC and Defendant BB Construction, respectively, on November 30, 2011

- 12-