Whether a fraudulent act of division of inherited property has been committed

Considering the marriage period, acquisition time, and degree of contribution to the acquisition of the real estate in this case by the Defendant’s economic activities, it is reasonable to deem that one-half share was in title trust with the Defendant’s spouse’s spouse’s net BB, and the amount of compensation for value is KRW 26,88,85.

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

2017 Ghana 248482 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

○ ○

December 19, 2018

January 30, 2019

1. 1/9 of the real estate stated in the attached Table concluded on January 28, 2016 between the defendant and the non-party ○○○.

The agreement on division of inherited property with respect to shares shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 26,88,885 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. A half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

2/9 of the real estate listed in the attached Table concluded on January 28, 2016 between the defendant and the non-party ○○○.

The agreement on division of inherited property with respect to the portion shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 53,77,770 and this shall apply.

The interest rate of 5% per annum from the day after the judgment of this case to the day of full payment.

under payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. ○○○ is a taxpayer or a secondary tax obligor as listed below with respect to the Plaintiff.

A total of 440,712,530 won national taxes (hereinafter referred to as "the taxation claims of this case") were delinquent.

B. On January 28, 2016, ○○○○, a spouse of the deceased, and ○○○, and ○○○○○, a child of the deceased.

○○ succeeded to the deceased’s property.

C. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) was owned by ○○○;

Defendant, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○○, and ○○○○○, retroactively from the date commencing an inheritance, the instant real estate was divided by the

The agreement on division of inherited property to be inherited to the public (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement on division of inherited property of this case")

B. Accordingly, on March 28, 2016, the transfer of ownership on the instant real estate to the Defendant.

The registration has been completed.

D. At the time of the consultation division contract of this case, ○○ was in excess of the debt.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 7, all pleadings

Purport

2. Assertion and determination

A. Establishment of preserved claims and fraudulent acts

In principle, even in cases where a debtor in excess of his/her obligation gives up his/her right to his/her inherited property while holding a divided agreement on inherited property, and thus a joint security against a general creditor has decreased, it constitutes a fraudulent act against a creditor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29119, Jul. 26, 200

According to the above facts of recognition, it constitutes a fraudulent act against the plaintiff, who is the creditor, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary, unless there are special circumstances to the effect that the plaintiff has the instant tax claim against ○○○ as preserved bonds, and that the debtor ○○○ has reverted his/her inheritance shares (2/9) on the real estate in excess of his/her debts to the defendant.

B. Scope of revocation of fraudulent act

1) Parties’ assertion

The Plaintiff is an inherited property of the deceased ○○○○○, and among them, on the premise that ○○○ ought to inherit 2/9 shares in his/her statutory share of inheritance, the Plaintiff seeks revocation of an agreement on the division of agreement with respect to ○○○○○○○○○○ shares in the instant real property and restitution of the original state accordingly.

As to this, the Defendant asserted that the instant real estate was merely a legitimate share of the Defendant’s share in the instant agreement that was created by the Defendant through the network ○○○ and lifelong education.

2) Determination

In addition to the above evidence, Eul evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and Eul evidence No. 8, the defendant maintained a married life by 54 years from September 1, 1962 to the death of ○○○○○○ upon completion of the marriage report, and the network ○○○ operated a factory that produces a scrupt network, etc. with the trade name of ○○○○○○○○, and the defendant also worked at the factory and gets her home at the same time, and around December 12, 1987, ○○○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○ apartment, ○○○○○○○ apartment, ○○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○, and then purchased new apartment by disposing of it and purchasing it until the death of the real estate in this case.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the real estate of this case was jointly formed or acquired by the defendant and ○○○○○○, and considering all the marriage period between the defendant and ○○○○○, the time of acquiring the real estate of this case, the degree of contribution to the common life of the married couple due to the defendant’s economic activities, etc., it is reasonable to view that the 1/2 shares in the real estate of this case

Therefore, the part of the instant real property that is subject to inheritance due to the death of ○○○ is the defendant’s shares.

The remainder of 1/2 shares, except for ○○, succeeded to 2/9 shares among them, which eventually led to the succession of 2/9 shares.

1/9(1/2 x 2/9) The agreement of this case should be revoked with respect to the share of real estate.

(c) Reinstatement;

1) If a creditor’s revocation of fraudulent act and a claim for restitution are acknowledged, the beneficiary is obligated to return the subject matter of the fraudulent act to the debtor as restitution. If it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the subject matter of the fraudulent act, the beneficiary is obligated to compensate for the equivalent amount of the value of the subject matter of the fraudulent act as a performance of the duty to restore if it is impossible or considerably difficult to return the subject matter. Here, the case where the return of the subject matter is impossible or considerably difficult means the case where the realization of the subject matter cannot be expected in light of the concept of social experience, rule of law or transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da58316, May 15, 1998). Thus, in case where a third party acquires the right of mortgage, superficies, etc. after fraudulent act, the creditor may seek compensation against the beneficiary instead of the return of the subject matter (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da57139, Feb. 9, 201).

2) According to the evidence evidence No. 4, after completing the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate in the future of the Defendant, the Defendant may recognize the completion of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage, which is the maximum debt amount of June 15, 2016, which is the debtor, the Defendant, the mortgagee, and the ○○ Bank Co., Ltd., and the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage, which is the debtor, the debtor, the Defendant, and the ○○ Bank Co., Ltd., the ○○○○○ on January 25, 2017. In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff may seek compensation equivalent to the value of the instant real estate in lieu of the original return. Meanwhile, in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 8, the market value of the instant real estate at the time of the closing of the argument in the instant case can be recognized as 242,00,000, and thus, the cancellation of the instant agreement

피고가 반환하여야 할 가액은 26,888,885원(≒242,000,000원×1/9)이고, 이는 이 사건

It is less than the tax claim amount.

D. Determination as to the defendant's defense of bona fide beneficiary

The defendant asserts that, at the time of the consultation division contract of this case, the Seosan was not aware of the fact that the plaintiff was liable for tax liability, and that the real estate of this case was not completed in the defendant's future with the intention to harm the plaintiff, and thus, it constitutes a bona fide beneficiary.

However, it is insufficient to recognize the evidence Nos. 2 through 8 only by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant is a bona fide beneficiary (in the case of the father’s death, it is difficult to readily conclude that the transfer of the inheritance shares of the children with respect to the house living together for a long time together with the father’s death to the remaining spouse through consultation and division is a social norm created through repeated practices of society

In addition, consultation on division of inherited property and renunciation of inheritance shall include the legal nature, period of exercise, method of exercise, legal effect, etc.

Since this strict distinction is strictly distinguished, the defendant's children, such as the classical book, are inherited as the intention to waive inheritance.

No such agreement shall be deemed to have been made.

E. Sub-committee

The agreement on the instant division between the defendant and the non-party ○○○ on January 28, 2016 concerning one-half portion of the instant real estate, which was concluded on January 28, 2016, shall be revoked. Accordingly, the defendant shall be liable to pay to the plaintiff 26,88,885 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of five percent per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the day following the day the judgment of this case became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are accepted.

Therefore, it is dismissed.

Judges ○○○