Since the part consumed for the defendant is extremely part of the part consumed for the defendant, it does not constitute a fraudulent act because it constitutes a performance of obligation not donated.

Although there is room to seek revocation of fraudulent act and restitution against the final holders of the above money on the ground that there was an act of disposal of property constituting a fraudulent act, such as donation or repayment of debt, by the last holders of the money, it cannot be claimed against the defendant.

2013Du25559 Revocation of fraudulent act

Korea

AAA

June 18, 2014

July 16, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The contract of donation concluded on April 14, 2010 between the newB and the Defendant with respect to the OOE shall be revoked within the scope of OOE. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 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.

1. Basic facts

"A. A. A. A. On March 22, 2010, 2010, the NewB sold real estate (hereinafter "the instant real estate") such as O2,825m2, and above-ground factories (hereinafter "the instant real estate"), and around that time, the Plaintiff notified the NewB to pay the transfer income tax for the year 2010 due to the above sale (hereinafter "the instant transfer income tax") by August 31, 2010."

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The assertion and judgment

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

According to the above facts of recognition, it is recognized that on March 31, 2010, a newB sold the instant real estate on March 22, 2010, and on March 31, 2010, the Plaintiff’s claim for the transfer income tax of this case against the newB was established, pursuant to Article 21(2)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

(b) the existence of fraudulent act;

1) Parties’ assertion

The Plaintiff asserted that, among the real estate sales proceeds in this case received by newB, the OOO members of the instant real estate sales proceeds, deposited into the instant account on April 14, 2010, the contract was concluded by the newB to donate the said money to the Defendant, and that this constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, a creditor of the newB, the Defendant asserted that, in the process of selling the instant real estate by the newB and allowing the StateG to establish the HH burner Co., Ltd., the Defendant only deposited the said money into the instant account under the name of the Defendant established by the newB on convenience, including the instant real estate sales proceeds, and did not receive any donation of the said money from the newB.

2) Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that NewB donated OOO on April 14, 2010 to the Defendant on the ground of the above facts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that NewB donated OOOOOO to the Defendant on April 14, 2010 is no longer necessary to examine the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the NewB donated OOOOOO to the Defendant without any further need.

A) While H Energy Co., Ltd operated the instant real estate as the representative director for the purpose of manufacturing and selling fire, etc., the newB sold the instant real estate to the DamageCC, etc. on March 22, 2010.

B) On April 13, 2010, the StateG established HH weapons Co., Ltd. with the location of the instant real estate for the purpose of manufacturing and selling fire, etc., and took office as its representative director. On April 9, 2010, immediately before the said establishment, the StateG deposited the POO members paid to the StateG’s account under the name of the StateG on April 14, 2010. On April 14, 2010, after the said establishment, the said POO members deposited the instant real estate by transferring it to the instant account. On April 16, 2010, the said OOO members concluded a lease agreement with the State Council again setting the instant real estate as the OO members for three years from the DamageCC on April 16, 2010.

C) The instant account was opened newly on April 9, 2010. Of the OOO members deposited on April 14, 2010, the remainder except the said OOOO members transferred to the account in the name of the DamageCC was transferred or remitted to the newCC, HH Energy Co., Ltd., new JJ, Park J, Park KK, LL, and UM, or to the person affiliated with the newB relationship with the newB himself/herself or with the newB, the balance of the instant account was over two months after the date of its establishment.

D) As above, among the OOO members deposited into the instant account on April 14, 2010, it appears that the amount actually received from HH fire Co., Ltd. for the purpose of temporarily depositing the share capital. The remaining OO members appear to have been consumed for the newBB, such as repayment of debts to H energy Co., Ltd., and most of them appears to have been consumed for the new BB, such as reimbursement of debts to H energy Co., Ltd. Furthermore, even if there were consumed for the Defendant, it is extremely nothing more than a partial portion and it seems to be impossible to specify this. In light of the above, the instant account appears to have been used for the benefit of HyB, even if the newB sold the instant real estate and the JejuG opened the HH fire Co., Ltd. in the process of establishing the HH fire Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff is ultimately entitled to seek restitution of the said money, apart from the fact that there is no room to seek restitution of the said property and the aforementioned fraudulent act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.