beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. As to shares of 1/6 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet:
A. The defendant B.
Reasons
1. The reasons why this court's explanation is the same as the "1. Basic Facts" on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it refers to the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the results of each fact-finding and the overall purport of the pleadings on the Ministry of Population and the Korea Federation of Banks at the time of the first instance court’s acceptance of a fraudulent act, it is recognized that B had no active property to impose property tax between April 1, 2014 and November 16, 2015. On the other hand, B bears an obligation of KRW 6,324,000 to Han Bank as of November 30, 2015, KRW 5,66,000, KRW 7,324,000, KRW 2,408,000 for New Mutual Savings Bank, and KRW 4,122,00 for A Savings Bank as of November 30, 2015.
Therefore, although B had no particular asset other than the inheritance share on the instant real estate and had the Defendant renounced the inheritance share on the instant real estate while holding a divided agreement on inherited property, and had the Defendant inherit the shares on the instant real estate, thereby reducing the joint collateral for general creditors. As such, B’s inheritance share on the instant real estate constitutes a fraudulent act and the Defendant’s bad faith is presumed to fall under B’s agreement on the division of inherited property on the instant real estate, since B’s inheritance share 1/6 (as B’s heir, including the Defendant and B, had six children, who were the owner of the instant real estate) is the Defendant and B.
B. The defendant's defense is alleged to have been bona fide with respect to B's speculative act. Thus, the defendant bears the burden of proving that the debtor's malicious act was committed against B, but the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is not a creditor with the burden of proving that the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is maliciously committed against the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser, and the debtor is liable to prove that the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is bona fide.