real estate donation contract constitutes a fraudulent act

The act of entering into a donation contract with the sole property and completing the registration of transfer of ownership, which had been in excess of debts at the time of the donation contract, constitutes a fraudulent act by knowing that it would prejudice the plaintiff as a creditor, unless there are special circumstances.

2012 Ghana 216190 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Song AA

June 19, 2013

July 3, 2013

1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet

A. The contract of donation concluded on August 5, 201 between the Defendant and Kimo is revoked.

B. On August 5, 2011, the defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the registration of E-friendly transfer of ownership by the Incheon District Court, Dongcheon Branch of Incheon District Court, Dongcheon Branch of the Republic of Korea (No. 2973

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Kimo-do owned 200 00 OOri, Jyang-si, Jyang-si, 200 m2,820.50 m20 m2010

1. On June 16, 201, the real estate of 2000 per annum is transferred to MOO, and the real estate of 5 000 per annum was transferred to POO on July 29, 2010, and was not paid after the preliminary return of capital gains tax was made on Echeon Tax Book, as listed below (the amount calculated by deducting KRW 00 on March 31, 201, and KRW 00 on May 13, 201, which was paid by lao).

B. On August 5, 2011, Kimo concluded a gift contract on the instant real estate (hereinafter “the instant gift contract”) between the Defendant and his wife on December 17, 1997 with respect to the real estate (the instant real estate) indicated in the [Attachment List, his father, KimO-O-O-owned on August 5, 201, and completed the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “the instant ownership transfer registration”) with respect to the Defendant on the same day on the same day.

C. At the time of the donation contract of this case, Kimo had been in excess of the debt without any specific property other than the instant real property.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including household numbers), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. The establishment of a fraudulent act;

In the absence of special circumstances, a debtor's act of transferring real estate, which is his sole property, to another person without compensation, becomes a fraudulent act in relation to the obligees, barring any special circumstances. The defendant's assertion that there was no intention of deception because Kimo paid 00 won through March 31, 201 and May 13, 201, it is argued that there was no intention of deception, and that the defendant's assertion is not acceptable because it is difficult to view that Kimo did not have intention of deception solely on the ground that the above facts were based on the above recognition, and that Kimo concluded a donation contract and completed the registration of transfer of ownership with the defendant as to the real estate in this case, which is the only property, in the absence of special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's bona fide assertion

The defendant, and the real estate of this case, were purchased at least 80,000 won upon the request of his pro-Japanese KimO's thickness, and was ordered to return the real estate to him before 25 years prior to 25 years prior to the death of his pro-Japanese, while the GimO died, and the defendant claimed that the real estate of this case was bona fide. However, in light of the fact that the defendant is the wife of Kimo, it is insufficient to recognize the defendant's good faith's assertion only as to each of the items of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the gift contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case as to the real estate of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.