sale of an apartment that is only the sole real property in excess of the debt constitutes a fraudulent act.

The act of entering into a contract to establish a collateral security contract and a sale contract converted into money which is the only real estate in excess of the obligation by bearing tax liability exceeding the active property, and the act of entering into a contract to sell it to the same person and make use of it easily constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff, who is the creditor, unless there

2012 Gohap 100877 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

apAA et al.

November 9, 2012

December 7, 2012

1. The sales contract concluded on February 18, 2010 between Defendant leapA and Nonparty 5B, and between Defendant leapA and Nonparty 5B, respectively, shall be revoked on October 29, 2010.

2. With respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet, and

A. Defendant Yoon-A’s registration office in the Seoul Southern District Court, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Southern District Court, was completed on February 18, 2010 by the registration office of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage that was completed on February 18, 2010.

B. Defendant PapA’s transfer registration that was completed on November 3, 201 by the receipt No. 45703 of the receipt on November 3, 201 to Defendant PapCC, Seoul Southern District Court Youngpool registry, and

C. Defendant CC: (a) the transfer registration of ownership that was completed on October 29, 2010 by the receipt No. 42257 from the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court); and (b) the transfer of ownership that was completed on October

Each cancellation registration procedure shall be implemented.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a tax creditor of the obligor Gangwon-B as follows, and the Defendant Yoon-A is a beneficiary who entered into a mortgage-backed contract with Gangwon-B as a member of the strongB, and is a subsequent purchaser who acquired the ownership of the apartment of this case prior to the transfer of ownership, and Defendant Yoon-CC is a partner of Defendant Yoon-A, who acquired the ownership of the apartment of this case from the Gangwon-B to the acquisition of the ownership of the apartment of this case.

B. On October 20, 2006, Gangwon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OOO acquired the ownership of a building with a size of 00 to 624.80 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “transfer real estate of this case”) on the ground of inheritance by consultation and division from the deceased, who is the spouse, and on August 27, 2009, sold the transfer real estate of this case at 00 billion won (hereinafter “the sales contract of this case”) and on November 30, 2009, when filing a preliminary return of transfer income tax with the help of Park HH who was working as a public official at the tax office in the past on November 30, 2009, when calculating the long-term possession special deduction holding period not on the date of acquiring the ownership of DoD, the predecessor, but on the date of acquiring the ownership of DoD’s property, the real estate of this case was voluntarily transferred 00 won after deducting the special deduction for long-term possession of 800 billion won subject to taxation from the date of transfer.

C. On January 7, 2010, Gangwon-B purchased real estate (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) from KimGG from each purchase price of KRW 000,00, and completed the establishment of a collateral security contract (hereinafter “mortgage creation contract of this case”) under the Seoul Southern Southern District Court’s receipt No. 6390 on February 18, 2010, which is the receipt of the above date sale and purchase contract of this case, between the debtor and the debtor, and the defendant Yoon-A, who was suffering from the same day, for the apartment of this case, the registration of the establishment of the collateral security contract of this case was completed as of February 18, 2010 (hereinafter “mortgage creation contract of this case”).

D. On October 29, 2010, the KangB concluded a sales contract to sell the apartment of this case to Defendant PapCC for KRW 000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On the same day, on October 29, 2010, he completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the instant sales contract (hereinafter “the first registration of ownership transfer”) with the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Southern District Court’s receipt No. 42257 on October 29, 2010.

E. As a result of the Plaintiff’s audit conducted through the Seoul Regional Tax Office between October 14, 2010 and November 2, 2010, the Plaintiff confirmed that the instant transferred real estate does not fall under the special deduction for long-term possession, and notified the Gangwon on January 31, 201 that he would additionally pay capital gains tax of 000 won to the Gangwon on January 31, 201 (hereinafter “instant tax claim”). However, the Plaintiff did not pay the said tax claim.

F. On November 3, 2011, Defendant PapCC concluded a sales contract to sell the instant apartment to Defendant PapA for KRW 000,000 on the same day, and completed the registration of ownership transfer that caused the same day as the receipt No. 45703 on November 3, 2011, the Seoul Southern District Court Young-gu District Court’s receipt of the said contract (hereinafter “instant 2 ownership transfer”).

G. Meanwhile, in the event that the Gangnam made a contract to establish the instant mortgage with Defendant Yoon-A on February 18, 2010 and around February 18, 2010, the GangwonB’s active property is equivalent to KRW 000 including the instant apartment, and if the purchase and sale contract was based on around October 29, 2010, the GangwonB’s active property is equal to KRW 000 and exceeds its obligation, compared to the instant tax claim.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 11 (each number numbering), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The establishment, revocation, and reinstatement of a fraudulent act;

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

In principle, a claim that can be protected by a creditor's right of revocation has arisen before the act was conducted. However, in light of the fact that there is a high probability that at the time of the fraudulent act, there is a legal relationship that has already been based on which the claim was established at the time of the fraudulent act, and that there is a high probability that the claim would be established in the near future, the claim may also become a preserved claim for the creditor's right of revocation. According to the above facts, the tax claim in this case was duly established on August 27, 2009, which was already at the time of transfer, and that the plaintiff was not subject to a special long-term holding deduction through a regular audit on October 2010, and that there was a high probability between the defendant's tax claim in this case and the tax claim in this case, which was established in the near future, around August 27, 2009, which was at the time of transfer, and that there was a high probability between the plaintiff and the tax claim in this case.

B. Whether fraudulent act and intent to commit suicide are recognized

(1) In addition, barring any special circumstance, an act of an obligor providing real estate, the sole property of which has already been in excess of his/her obligation, to one of the obligees as collateral is a fraudulent act subject to obligee's right of revocation in relation to other obligees (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da43352, Apr. 12, 2002). In addition, barring any special circumstance, an act of an obligor providing real estate, the sole property of which has already been in excess of his/her obligation, to one of the obligees, is a fraudulent act in relation to other obligees unless there are other special circumstances, and in particular, an act of an obligor selling real estate, the sole property of which is the obligor's own property, and changing it into money easily for consumption, the obligor's intent to cause a fraudulent act against the obligee, and is presumed to be a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da3262, Sept. 29

(2) As seen in the foregoing, the act of entering into the instant sales contract, which was converted into money that is readily usable by selling the instant apartment, which is the only real estate in excess of the debt, by having the riverB bear the instant tax liability, which exceeds the Plaintiff’s active property, with Defendant A, the only real estate in excess of the debt, and the act of entering into the instant sales contract, which is converted into money that is readily recognizable for consumption by selling it to Defendant ACC, the birth of the Plaintiff, the creditor, and the intention of the riverBB, the debtor, and the Defendants’ bad faith, the beneficiary, is presumed, barring special circumstances.

(3) The Defendants, (i) were aware of their purchase price, (ii) were 00 won, and (iii) were so requested by the former tax official HaB to calculate the expected transfer income tax, and (iv) were thought to have been completely arranged for the issue of transfer income tax, and (iv) were not anticipated that the future transfer income tax will be imposed on the apartment of this case in its name to the extent that the apartment of this case would be purchased. (iii) Defendant 2 had no intention to harm the creditors, and Defendant 1 had no intention to purchase her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office she was so decided that the Defendants’ office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her office her.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the mortgage contract of this case and the sales contract of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and as a restoration to its original state, the defendant leapA, the subsequent purchaser and the beneficiary, performed the registration procedure for cancellation of the second ownership transfer registration of this case to the defendant leapCC, and implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the first ownership transfer registration of this case to the riverB, and the defendant leapCC has the obligation to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the first ownership transfer registration of this case to the GangwonB.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be accepted in entirety on the grounds of the reasons.