the sole act of donation of property in default constitutes a fraudulent act

It is necessary to conclude a gift contract on real estate, the sole property of which is the creditor, with the assumption of tax liability in default, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the plaintiff as the creditor.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The contract of donation concluded on July 27, 2007 between the defendant and the least ○○ shall be revoked.

2. The defendant to the largest ○○,

A. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 6, the Jeonju District Court’s Circuit registry office was completed on July 31, 2007 by the receipt No. 8357

B. As to the real estate listed in paragraph 7 of the attached list, the procedure for registration of cancellation of each transfer of ownership completed as No. 23911 on July 31, 2007 shall be implemented.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

In the event that ○○○ Head is liable to pay taxes to the Plaintiff as stated in the separate sheet as shown on July 27, 2007, when the Defendant, the wife, entered into a contract on each of the real estate listed on the separate sheet as the only property owned by him (hereinafter referred to as “instant gift contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant transfer registration”) on July 31, 2007, the fact that each of the instant transfer registration listed in the separate sheet No. 1, No. 2, No. 1, No. 2, No. 4-2, and No. 4-2, and the overall purport of the pleadings is recognized. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the instant gift contract constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the Plaintiff, and thus, should be revoked, and the Defendant, the beneficiary, is obligated to implement each of the transfer registration procedures.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

As to this, the defendant alleged in good faith that he did not know of the above tax liability against the plaintiff of the least ○○, the debtor at the time of the donation contract in this case, and there is no evidence to reverse the beneficiary's bad faith presumed legally, and therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.