The defendant's bona fide defense is reasonable, and the plaintiff cannot claim revocation of the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case against the defendant who is a bona fide beneficiary.

Before about 10 years of birth, the Nonparty was unable to support the Defendant’s family for a long time. At the time of the deceased’s death due to cancer, it appears that it was difficult for the Defendant to say that he was liable for considerable tax liability, or that he was in excess of his obligation, and that there was no special need to inform the Defendant of his economic uncertainty.

Article 406 of the Civil Act, the obligee's right of revocation

Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

○ ○

oly 13, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

1. The agreement between the defendant and the non-party AA on the division of inherited property concluded on October 13, 2014 with respect to 3/7 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 shall be revoked. The defendant will implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of revocation of fraudulent act with respect to 3/7 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1.

2. From among the real estate listed in the attached Table 2 between the defendant and the non-party AAA, the agreement on the division of inherited property concluded on October 13, 2014 with respect to 00 ○○○○○ apartment x-dong, 000 ○○○, ○○ apartment x-dong, 00 x-dong, ○○, ○○○,000 x-7 x-7 shares shall be revoked within the limit of 30,000 won, and the agreement on division of inherited property concluded on October 13, 2014 with respect to ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○ apartment x-dong, ○○, ○○○, ○0 x-dong, ○, 00.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 million won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case is finalized to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s taxation claim against Nonparty AA

Non-party AA run wholesale and retail business, such as office equipment, in the trade name, from around 1999 to around 2003. As of October 2016, national taxes in arrears amount to KRW 342,785,190 in total as shown below.

B. The division consultation of the inherited property of this case and the insolvency of Nonparty AA

1) Nonparty BB (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) who is the spouse of Nonparty AA, died on October 13, 2014. The inheritor was Nonparty AA (3/7) who is the spouse, Defendant (2/7 inherited portion), and Nonparty CCC (2/7 inherited portion).

2) On October 13, 2014, Nonparty AA and the Defendant, and Nonparty CCC concluded an agreement on the division of inherited property (hereinafter referred to as “agreement on division of inherited property of this case”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 as well as each real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 as indicated in the separate sheet 2 (hereinafter referred to as “each real estate of this case”) owned by the Deceased on October 13, 2014. Accordingly, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 as indicated in the separate sheet 1 as of December 23, 2014, they completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 13, 2014 under each Defendant’s name as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 as indicated in the separate sheet 2 as of December 18, 2014.

3) At the time, Nonparty A had been in excess of its obligation, such as having been liable for tax liability as above.

C. Disposal of the defendant's inherited property

1) On December 23, 2014, the Defendant sold ○○○○ apartment ○○○○○, Dong 000, ○○○○○ apartment xxxx (hereinafter “instant 000 apartment”) to Nonparty DD order. On January 28, 2015, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in Nonparty D’s name with respect to the instant 000 apartment on December 28, 2015.

2) On July 3, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with regard to the maximum debt amount regarding ○○○○○○○○○xxxxxxxx on a parcel of ○○○, Dong-dong, 000, 000 and the debtor, among the real estate listed in the attached list 2, as indicated in the attached list 2 on July 3, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to the establishment of fraudulent act

A. Relevant legal principles

The agreement on division of inherited property is to confirm the reversion of inherited property by owning the whole or part of inherited property, which has been provisionally owned by each inheritor, or by performing as a new co-ownership relationship, with respect to the inherited property which has been provisionally owned by co-inheritors upon commencement of inheritance, and therefore, it is a juristic act aimed at property rights in its nature. Therefore, a fraudulent act may be the subject of the exercise of the right to revoke a fraudulent act. Meanwhile, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the debtor's act of selling real property, which is one of his/her own property, and replacing it with or transferring it to another person without compensation, constitutes a fraudulent act against the creditor. Thus, even in cases where the joint security against the general creditor has decreased by waiver of his/her right to his/her inherited property upon consultation on division of inherited property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

B. Determination

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff had a tax claim against Nonparty A at the time of the agreement on division of the instant inherited property, and thus, the said tax claim is subject to the obligee’s right of revocation. Meanwhile, Nonparty A, the obligor, had already been in excess of the debt, and in such a situation, the joint security against the general creditors was reduced by giving up his share of inheritance regarding each of the instant real property while holding the agreement on division of the instant inherited property. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the agreement on division of the instant inherited property constitutes a fraudulent act against the other creditors, including the Plaintiff, etc. on Nonparty A’s share of inheritance (3/7), and it is presumed that Nonparty AA’s intent is recognized as the obligor, and the Defendant’s bad faith, the beneficiary, is presumed.

3. Determination as to the defendant's bona fide defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The defendant, whose father, the non-party AA was the defendant's father in around 200, had his house built around 2003 when the defendant was a middle student, and no contact was made for about 10 years thereafter. The defendant's mother, who was the deceased, had been living in a crypology and had been living in several times around October 2014 when the deceased died, and the non-party AA was registered in the name of the defendant as to each of the real estate of this case according to the deceased's intention. At that time, the defendant could not know at all whether the property status or debts of the non-party AA was exceeded. Thus, the defendant defense as a bona fide beneficiary.

B. Determination

1) Since the beneficiary's bad faith in a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act is presumed to be the beneficiary's bad faith, the beneficiary is responsible to prove his/her good faith in order to be exempted from his/her liability. In such cases, the issue of good faith shall be determined reasonably in light of logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the relationship between the debtor and the beneficiary, the details of and the background or motive for the act of disposal between the debtor and the beneficiary, the circumstances leading up to the act of disposal, whether there are no special circumstances to suspect that the terms and conditions of the act of disposal, and whether there are objective materials to support the normal transaction, and circumstances after the act of disposal, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da74621, Jul. 10, 2008; 2010Da876

2) In light of the following facts or circumstances, the Defendant appears not to have known that the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case was detrimental to the creditors of Nonparty AA at the time of the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case, and the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 8 through 18 alone do not interfere with the above recognition, and there is no counter-proof.

① Nonparty A had her house around 2003 when the Defendant was a middle student on the ground of family inequality, etc., and thereafter, Nonparty A had no contact for about 10 years with the Defendant’s family member (the deceased, the Defendant, and the CCC).

② Nonparty A had become aware of the fact that Nonparty A was in contact with the Deceased in the summer of 2014, and the Deceased was suffering from cryptic disease, and that he/she was living in the limited part of the deceased. Around October 2014, the time when the Deceased died, the Defendant had to take part in the Defendant several times.

③ The Deceased operated “bbb” within the △ University from December 2004 to support the Defendant and CCC, who is the children of Nonparty A, after having come to work in the house.

④ Defendant and CCC entered △△ University to assist the Deceased and operated the said “bbbbb”. Nonparty CCC was employed in the latter part of 201 and became a director in △△ City in the latter part of 2011, and the Defendant was employed in 0000 in the latter part of 2012, and the Deceased was employed in the first half of 2012, making it difficult for △△ to operate the said “bbb” any longer due to the death of the Deceased’s disease. This was closed on April 30, 2013.

⑤ From December 2011, the Deceased operated a reproduction house (mutually referred to as cccccccccccccccccccccc) in △ River with the Defendant’s external village. After the Deceased’s death, Nonparty AA used the deceased’s telephone number and took the process of closing the said reproduction room.

6) Following the deceased’s death, the Defendant and CCC shall transfer all the deceased’s inherited property under the name of the Defendant residing in △△△△△△△△, notified Nonparty A of such fact, and completed the inheritance registration in the name of the Defendant as to each of the instant real property after receiving documents necessary for the transfer of inherited property from Nonparty AA on December 2014.

7) In addition to these facts, Nonparty AA was out of around 10 years prior to her death, and was unable to support the Defendant’s family for a long time. It appears that it was difficult for the Defendant to bear a considerable tax liability, or to say that she was in excess of a debt. At the time of the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case, there was no special need for her children including the Defendant at the time of the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case, and the deceased purchased each real estate of this case and completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the deceased. Accordingly, Nonparty AA could be deemed to fall under the deceased’s unique property, and Nonparty AA had no contribution to the formation of the property of each of the instant real estate of this case. Accordingly, Nonparty AA prepared relevant documents when the inheritance registration was completed under the sole name of the Defendant, any objection or right thereto was not asserted, and Nonparty A could not be seen to have shared the deceased’s family’s business with the Defendant’s family or his family during the process.

3) Therefore, the defendant's bona fide defense is reasonable, and the plaintiff cannot claim revocation of the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case against the defendant, a bona fide beneficiary. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without examining the remaining points.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.