Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Whether a fraudulent act is applicable

2014 Gohap22516 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Park 00

Contract of donation of 50 million won in cash concluded on July 6, 2009 between Park 00 and 000; and

The date of July 6, 2009, executed on July 6, 2009, KRW 43 million, and the date of July 6, 2010

Each contract of donation of KRW 10 million shall be revoked. Defendant Park 00,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000

J. J.S. 53 million won and each of them shall be from the day following the day this judgment becomes final to the day of full payment.

An amount of 5% per annum shall be paid in each amount.

New 00 shall be from the National Bank of Korea on April 21, 2008 to its members, such as KB reconstruction.

The fact that 00 won was loaned from 00 won as the goods to move expenses and returned the deposit to the lessee of the building thereafter, 000 won was returned from June 30, 2009 to 1.7.2, 200,000 won was deposited in the account of the National Bank under the name of her own name from June 30, 2009 to July 2, 2009; 200,000 won was deposited in the said account under the name of her new loan account under the name of her own name; 3 million won was deposited on July 6, 2009; 2.42 million won was withdrawn on March 26, 2010 and returned to her Kim Jong-soo on March 27, 2010; 2.00 won was deposited in the above account under the name of her new loan account under the name of her new loan account under the name of 1 million won; and 2.00 million won was deposited in the above account under the name of her new loan account.

10,000 won transferred to Defendant New 00 on July 6, 100 appears to be for the repayment of the loan.

In other words, most of the transfers of this case against the Defendants were returned to 000, or for that purpose

used, and 000 the land of this case or the Defendants at the time of the deposit of this case

(1) each e-mail of 00 assets, such as the above-mentioned and its ground buildings and financial accounts;

In light of the fact that it can not be ruled out that the account is also used, the facts acknowledged earlier.

They are objectively 000 and the Defendants’ each of the above deposits at the time of the instant deposit.

B It is difficult to confirm that there was a mutual agreement with the Defendants to grant them free of charge, and otherwise,

There is no evidence to prove.

3. Conclusion

The Plaintiff’s revocation of fraudulent act against the Defendants on the premise that the deposit in this case is a gift

The claim for recovery is without merit and without merit to further examine the remainder of the claim.

All of the Justices are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

June 3, 2015

July 22, 2015

1. All of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

1. Basic facts

A. On January 26, 2007, 000, 000 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff were transferred to Park*, *, the largest* on August 1, 201, and the Plaintiff imposed and notified the transfer income tax of KRW 00 on August 1, 201 (the due date of payment, January 31, 2007; August 31, 201; the due date of payment, August 31, 201); and the due date of 000 square meters as of May 20, 2014, the amount of delinquent tax is KRW 00.

B. On July 6, 2009, 000 won was withdrawn from the national bank account under his/her name as a check, and deposited KRW 00,000,000 into the dynamic securities account under the name of Defendant New 00, which is the same day, and KRW 00,000,000 won was deposited into the dynamic securities account under his/her name on July 5, 2010, and deposited KRW 00,000 into the national bank account under Defendant New 00 on July 6, 2010. [based on recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, subparagraph 1-1, 2, 3, A, 2, 3, 2, 4-1, 4-2, and 4-1, 2, each of the arguments, as a whole.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Pursuant to the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality"), the account holder has the right to dispose of the money deposited as the deposit account holder. The tax obligor against the Plaintiff, who was in excess of his/her obligation, deposited the money deposited in his/her own account under his/her name on July 6, 2009 and July 6, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the "money deposited in this case") constitutes a fraudulent act that reduces his/her joint security as a donation. Accordingly, each of the above donation contracts should be revoked, and the Defendants, the beneficiary, are obligated to return each of the above transfers to the Plaintiff due to its restitution.

B. Relevant legal principles

With respect to a creditor seeking revocation of a fraudulent act’s assertion that an act of payment of money to a beneficiary is a gift to a beneficiary of a debtor, it constitutes denial of creditor’s assertion. Thus, in order to be recognized as a fraudulent act, the said act of payment of money constitutes a gift, and the burden of proof thereof lies in the claimant’s assertion of a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da28686, May 31, 2007). In order to establish a donation contract regarding money remitted to another person’s account, first of all, the obligor and another person should be construed as having a consistent intent to give money transferred as such through donation to another person ultimately belong to another person and free of charge between the obligor and another person. The burden of proof lies on the creditor asserting that such act of transfer is subject to creditor’s right of revocation. Meanwhile, where money is transferred to another person’s account, the remittance can be based on various legal causes and thus, the person having a relation of his/her own account with the authority to avoid such transfer of money to his/her own account.

Unless there are circumstances under which the remitter and the account holder agree with the intent to grant the remittance amount free of charge as above to the account holder, it cannot be readily concluded that such agreement had been objectively made. This is special in the case of a deposit account opened under the real name verification process under the Real Name Financial Transactions Act.

Unless there exist any circumstances, even if the account holder is entitled to claim the return of deposit as a party to the deposit contract, this is related to the relationship with the financial institution in which the account was opened, and the legal relationship between the remitter and the account holder is not immediately viewed as different (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The legal nature of the instant deposit act is the legal nature of

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and evidence evidence Nos. 8, and the overall purport of the arguments as to financial transaction information of the o-securities corporation of this court, the above o-securities account opened in the name of Defendant Park 00 on July 6, 2009 through the identification procedure, such as the canning the resident registration certificate of Defendant Park 00, but the above o-securities account opened in the name of Defendant Park 00. Meanwhile, the evidence and evidence No. 1-2, No. 2, No. 3, No. 2, No. 4-1, No. 4-2, each of the above o-securities accounts in the name of the Defendants was opened on July 6, 2009, each of which was established on July 6, 2009, each of which was registered in the name of the Defendants with the same o-securities account (7027-600-4069, 200, each of which was registered in the name of the Defendant Park 201-207,201.