Suwon District Court 201 Gohap24084 ( October 10, 2012)

In the absence of an agreement on the distribution of profits or the return of principal, the money remitted to the defendant who is the son shall be deemed to be a onerous donation.

In light of the fact that there is no investment return, there is no reason to remit a regular amount to the Defendant, and that it is extremely rare to invest a higher amount without an agreement to return the investment principal at the time of the distribution of investment return or the termination of investment, and that in light of the difficulty of futures option investment and the relationship between the Defendant and the Defendant, the money remitted to the Defendant, who is the Defendant, should be considered as a donation with an burden.

2012Na48505 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

IsaA

Suwon District Court Decision 201Da24084 Decided May 10, 2012

November 7, 2012

December 5, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant will cancel the contract of donation of KRW 000 on November 27, 2009, which was concluded between the defendant and LeeB, within the limit of KRW 000,000, and the defendant will pay the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 000 per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the co-defendant of the first instance trial and the plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the judgment in this case are as follows, and the 4th to 5th 6th 17th 17th 5th 6th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 2

2. Parts to be dried;

We examine the character of 00 won remitted from thisB. The defendant, while living in the real estate B from this case, there has been no income from the sale of the real estate in this case to the Korea Housing Corporation, and when investing a certain amount, 00 won would be paid monthly, and 00 won would be used as a repayment for existing 00 won and the remaining 00 won would be used as an investment deposit by the defendant. It is argued that the agreement between the defendant and the 200 won was not only 1, 2, 3, 5, and 14, and 13, and 14, and that the total amount of 00 won would not be paid from the defendant's investment account to the defendant under the name of 10,000 won, and that 10,000 won would be regularly returned from the defendant's investment account to 30,000 won, and that 20,000 won would be distributed from the defendant's investment account to 30,000 won.

2. Additional judgment;

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, at the time of transfer to the Defendant, B had cash assets exceeding the amount of tax credit, and thereafter, when remitting to ParkCC, this would become insolvent. According to the court's fact inquiry into one bank, this B transferred 00 won to the Defendant on November 27, 2009, and then transferred 13:04 and 13:07 on the same day after 6 minutes, to the Defendant, 13:00 won in total, can be found to have been remitted to the Defendant at the time of sale of the real estate at the time of each act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da69026, Apr. 27, 2001; 2000Da69026, etc.). However, if the obligor had continued to dispose of the real estate at the time of sale, it should be determined to the extent that the other party had the same opportunity to jointly dispose of the real estate at the time of sale at each act.

B. The Defendant, as well as B, purchased OOOO 00 OO 00 O village 000 000 000, and mutually living together with B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer by trusting its ownership to LCC, the above apartment house is recognized as property of this BB, and as at the time of fraudulent act, the market price of the above apartment is 00 won, and it is not insolvent. Even if YB transferred its ownership under the name of GB’s internal source of purchase and living together with OB as the price for selling 200 , it cannot be readily concluded that the above apartment was a trust property of this BB. Even if this BB completed the registration of ownership transfer under a title trust agreement with GCC, and the seller, a future construction corporation, and the owner of this apartment is not aware of the ownership of the above apartment under the proviso to Article 270 of the Act on Real Estate Ownership 40 of this Decree, barring special circumstances, i.e., e., 207., the aforementioned owner of this title 47.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.