In this case, the creditor's act of paying money to the beneficiary does not constitute a gift.

If the creditor who seeks revocation of the fraudulent act denies the beneficiary's claim that the monetary payment to the beneficiary is a gift, the creditor who asserts the fraudulent act is responsible for proving that the monetary payment constitutes the gift.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2011 Gohap3937 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

KimAA et al.

September 27, 2012

October 25, 2012

1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

1. The primary places and places;

As between June 8, 2009 and June 10, 2010, the agreement on the donation of KRW 000 between Defendant KimA and Nonparty B shall be revoked. DefendantCC shall pay to the Plaintiff 00 won and 5% interest per annum from the day following the date of the instant judgment to the day of full payment.

2. Preliminaryly, and

As between June 8, 2009 and May 31, 2010, the agreement on the donation of KRW 000 shall be revoked. Defendant KimA shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the day after the date of the final judgment of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The director of the tax office under the Plaintiff’s control, and between 2006 and 2009, the tax office imposed global income tax, etc. for the year 2006 since 2006 on the grounds that the B purchased 180,000 square meters in the OOO-gun in Gyeonggi-do and sold in installments, and did not pay the income tax on it. The details of arrears as of the time of the Plaintiff’s filing the instant lawsuit are as follows.

(Ommission of Default omitted)

(b) ThisB remitted the Defendant KimA’s Bank account (hereinafter referred to as the “instant account”), the spouse, KRW 00 on June 8, 2009, KRW 9.28.000 on September 8, 2009, and KRW 000 on October 30 on the same year, and KRW 00 on December 6, 2010 on the same year, KRW 00 on December 12, 2010, KRW 000 on the same year, and KRW 000 on the same year, and KRW 000 on the same year, and KRW 00 on the 27.19.19.0 on the same year, and KRW 00 on the 31.00 on the same month (hereinafter referred to as each of the instant remittances”).

"A. From April 26, 2010 to June 10, 2010, Defendant 2 donated KRW 000 for purchase fund, etc. of OOOO apartment 00,000,000 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") in Ansan-si, OOO apartment 00, OOO apartment 00,000 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), [Grounds for Recognition], without dispute, and the items stated in subparagraphs A1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Around June 8, 2009, thisB transferred KRW 000,000, which was part of the income earned by dividing the total amount of more than 180,000 square meters into the instant account from June 8, 2009 to May 31, 2010 (each of the instant transfers), to Defendant KimA, and Defendant KimA, from April 26, 2010 to June 10, 2010, returned KRW 00,000, out of the above KRW 00,000, out of the above KRW 00,000, to DefendantCC for the instant apartment purchase.

(2) The above donation made by thisB against Defendant KimA constitutes a fraudulent act that reduces liability property in relation to creditors, including the Plaintiff, and at the same time, this constitutes a fraudulent act, and thisB was aware that this would prejudice the Plaintiff, who is a tax claim, and Defendant KimA and the subsequent purchaser, who is the beneficiary, are also recognized in bad faith by Defendant KimA and LeeCC.

(3) Accordingly, among the gift contracts of KRW 000 entered into between BB and Defendant KimA, a beneficiary, from June 8, 2009 to May 31, 2010, the gift contract of KRW 000 should be revoked by fraudulent act, and the DefendantCC, a subsequent purchaser due to restitution, has the obligation to pay the Plaintiff KRW 000 and its delay damages, and ② in preliminary case between BB and Defendant KimA, a beneficiary, should be revoked by fraudulent act, and Defendant KimA, a beneficiary, has the obligation to pay the Plaintiff KRW 00 and its delay damages.

B. The defendants' assertion

Defendant KimA, as its own funds, OOO apartment 00 00 000 000 0000 OOOOOO apartment owned by it, purchased 39,828 m28 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m39,000 m21-5 m28 m28 m20 m20 m39,828 m20 (hereinafter “mutual m20 m39,828 m20 m2, etc.) and sell the divided m20 m39,828 m20 m2. At the time of this, the two m2 was entrusted to Defendant KimA, and in the process, this part of the purchase price of OOb m2 m2 m2 was deposited into the account of Defendant KimA. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s transfer of each of the above m20 m20 m2.

3. Judgment on the main claim

A. In the absence of special circumstances, if the debtor donated his own property to another person under excess of his/her obligation, such act would constitute a fraudulent act, or if the beneficiary denies the beneficiary's assertion that the creditor seeking revocation of the fraudulent act is a gift to the beneficiary, and the burden of proving that the monetary payment constitutes a gift is on the part of the creditor who asserts the fraudulent act.

B. The defendant denies that each remittance of this case is not a gift, and first, we examine whether each remittance of this case constitutes a gift.

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments by the Plaintiff’s 1 through 4, and 7 through 12 (including the number of the Plaintiff’s purchase price), Defendant Kim A, as otherwise alleged by the Defendant Kim 1, sold the above apartment to KI on March 3, 2009, and ② Defendant Kim A purchased OB forest land on May 20, 2009 and completed the registration of ownership transfer under its name on July 14, 2009, and then sold the above OB forest land for 00 if it appears to have been sold to the account of the Plaintiff, and that Defendant Kim 2, as at the time of the purchase of OB forest, sold the remaining funds to the account of the Plaintiff’s 1,000,000 won for each of the above 2,000 Won Kim 3,00,000,000 won for each of the above 2,000,000 won for each of the 2,000,000 won.

C. In addition, as long as the defendant CC transferred 00 won to the account of this case of the defendant KimA, the above money was separated from the funds of the defendant KimA and could not be specified. As such, as the plaintiff asserts, the defendant KimA transferred 000 won to the account of this case, and then withdrawn 00 won as part of it, and paid it to the defendant CC, it is difficult to see that the defendant KimA acquired the object of this fraudulent act, and it is difficult to see that the plaintiff acquired the object of this fraudulent act, and that the plaintiff's main claim of this case on the premise that the plaintiff is the subsequent purchaser of 00 won out of 00 won paid to the defendant KimA.

4. Determination on the conjunctive claim

As seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the amount deposited by each remittance of this case is the amount that the Plaintiff donated to Defendant Kim AA, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim in this case is without merit to further examine it.

5. Conclusion

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