Seoul Eastern District Court 2011 Gohap21080 ( October 27, 2012)

(b) a fraudulent act by which the existence of a claim is sufficiently predicted and is not delinquent;

It is insufficient to recognize that a gift contract was concluded as part of division of property, and it is recognized that there was a lack of evidence that the gift contract was concluded as part of division of property, and that the gift contract was sufficiently predicted at the time of the gift contract, and

2012Na 33022 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Chapter AA

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2011Gahap21080 Decided March 27, 2012

September 18, 2012

October 18, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The contract of donation concluded on March 3, 2010 with respect to the co-ownership 302 of the fourth co-ownership of the fourth co-ownership of the fourth floor of the land reinforced concrete building in Yongsan-gu, Seoul, OOB between the defendant and the riverB shall be revoked within the limit of KRW 000. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 00 and 5% per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) at the end of Section 4 of Section 4 of the first instance court's decision (at the time of testimony at the trial court's decision, active property, other than the real estate of this case, had a deposit claim equivalent to KRW 000 and a share equivalent to KRW 000, and (b) the active property of this case was in excess of the obligation). (c) Chapter 7 through 18 are as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's decision, except for modification and supplement as stated in the following 2. Thus, it is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Parts to be corrected; and

A. Whether the instant donation contract is not a fraudulent act as a division of property

“The Defendant,” and this case’s donation contract, which was concluded between the Defendant and B, had conflict due to the death of his child and the strongB son’s disease, were transferred to the Defendant at the end of 2009, and only the report of divorce under the agreement between the Defendant and B, was delayed at the beginning of 2011, so this case’s donation contract does not constitute piracy. The Defendant had no other reason to recognize the Defendant’s donation contract’s 1, 2, 3 and 5, 9, and 12 (including number ; hereinafter the same shall apply) as the testimony of the Party B witness, and the testimony of the Party B, 10, 4, 12, 12, 12, and 12, and 200, 200, 30,000,000,000,000 won and 2,00,000,000 won.

"The gift contract of this case is a fraudulent act, and there is intention to cause harm to the riverB, which is the debtor,. The testimony of the witness Gangwon-B in the first instance trial is comprehensively taken into account and 2, 5, and 8, and the riverB has continuously omitted sales from 2006 as the operator of the enterprise called "OO", and there was a dispute over the distribution of profits from tax evasion since 2009, and the riverB had the same type of business and registered the same company in its name on January 25, 2010, and the OOO which was registered in its name can be found to have been closed on November 30, 2010, and the defendant's donation of this case was made to the defendant on March 3, 2010, and the riverB has sufficiently predicted the procedure of the tax claim of this case as to the defendant's assignment of the real estate at the time of this case."

The Defendant acquired the instant real estate through the division of property following the divorce with the strongB, and the Defendant did not know that the instant gift contract constituted a fraudulent act. However, the Defendant’s defense is groundless in light of the following: (a) there was no evidence to acknowledge that the instant gift contract was a genuine division of property; (b) there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had acted in good faith; (c) the relationship between the Defendant and the GangwonB before the instant donation contract, and (d) the GangwonB had registered the same trade name in the name of the Defendant before the instant donation contract, and operated the business

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted, and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.