It constitutes a fraudulent act to donate cash received from the sale price after the sale of the instant real property to the spouse.

In the absence of proof as to the assertion that KimA, a spouse of the defendant, was not a debt excess, the cash donation in this case constitutes a fraudulent act.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2013 group 13 Provisional Registration Cancellation, etc.

IsaA

Republic of Korea Overseas

BBB,CC: Confession (Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

Korea: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 through 3, 2-1 through 3, 3

No. 1, entry of No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the foregoing, the instant agreement was concluded on September 16, 2013 by Defendant BBB’s default on its obligations.

Defendant BBB is deemed to have been lawfully released on the ground that the action was brought against the Plaintiff.

The obligation to implement the registration procedures for cancellation of each provisional registration of this case due to the cancellation on September 16, 2013.

Defendant Republic of Korea, DefendantCC, expressed its intent to accept each of the above cancellation registrations.

have an obligation to take place.

B. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

(1) The defendant Republic of Korea shall claim against the plaintiff by the defendant BB for each provisional registration of this case.

the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the above debt to the Defendant U.S.C.

To the extent that each of the provisional registrations of this case cannot be claimed against L&S

Korea also has no obligation to express an intention of acceptance for each of the above cancellation registrations.

chapter.

B. The provisional registration of this case was completed on the ground of the agreement of this case

As seen above, each of the provisional registrations of this case is Defendant U.S. only with the evidence submitted by Defendant Republic of Korea

It is insufficient to recognize that C&S’s claims against the Plaintiff were completed in order to secure the claims of the Plaintiff, and the month.

There is no evidence to acknowledge this, each of the provisional registrations of this case to the plaintiff of defendant BB.

The above argument of the defendant Republic of Korea on the premise that it will be completed to secure the claim against such defendant

Furthermore, there is no reason to consider without the need to do so.

The Republic of Korea is based on the legal effect of the instant arrangement prior to the rescission of the Arrangement.

shall be deemed to be a third party under the proviso of Article 548(1) of the Civil Code which has a new interest.

Therefore, with respect to the plaintiff's declaration of consent on the registration of cancellation of each provisional registration of this case.

I argue that there is no obligation to do so.

The reason for seizure on May 16, 2012, before the rescission of the instant arrangement by the Defendant Republic of Korea

on May 18, 2012, each provisional registration of this case is subject to the additional registration of seizure of each claim for transfer of ownership.

As seen earlier, the completion of the contract is a third party under the proviso of Article 548(1) of the Civil Code.

generally based on the legal effect arising from the cancelled contract, the

person who has acquired full rights by means of registration, delivery, etc. as well as the interest in the Corporation;

Therefore, either the transferee of contractual claims or the creditor who seized or entirely attached the claims itself, is here.

It does not constitute a third party (Supreme Court Decision 9Da51685 delivered on April 11, 2000, etc.).

C) The Defendant Republic of Korea shall have ownership under the instant arrangement against the Plaintiff by Defendant BB.

The third party under the proviso of Article 548(1) of the Civil Act is merely a creditor who seized the right to request registration of the previous registration itself.

The defendant Republic of Korea does not constitute a third party under the proviso of Article 548(1) of the Civil Code.

The above argument of the defendant Republic of Korea on the premise that it is reasonable is also without any need to examine it.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is with merit, and all of them shall be accepted.

this decision is delivered with the judgment of the court.

March 27, 2014

April 24, 2014

1. The Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant BBB shall:

(1) As to the registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed under No. 00000 of receipt on July 28, 2011, with respect to the real property listed in Section 1 of the Schedule, by Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court Branch:

With respect to the registration of the transfer of ownership, which was completed in accordance with No. 00000 of receipt on July 28, 2011, with respect to the real property listed in paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the Sheet:

Abstract With respect to the registration of the transfer of ownership, which was completed on July 28, 201 by Suwon District Court Branch Branch No. 00000 on the real property listed in [Attachment] List No. 3:

Each of the procedures for the registration of cancellation made on September 16, 2013; and

B. Defendant Republic of Korea and DefendantCC Co., Ltd expressed their intent to accept each of the registration procedures for cancellation of ownership transfer registration as described in the above paragraph (a).

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

Order 1)

A. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each of the real estate of this case"), the plaintiff

On August 12, 2009, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on August 13, 2009.

B. (1) On July 25, 2011, Defendant BBB (hereinafter “Defendant BB”) entered into a pre-sale agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with respect to each of the instant real estate on July 25, 201 by setting up a purchase and sale reservation amount of KRW 68 million, and received each of the instant provisional registration from the Plaintiff on July 28, 201, with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 for the instant agreement from the Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court, as the receipt of KRW 0000 on July 28, 2011, with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 of the attached Table, as the branch court of Suwon District Court, as the receipt of KRW 0000 on July 28, 2011, with respect to each of the instant real estate listed in paragraph (3) of the attached Table, each of the instant provisional registration was completed (hereinafter “each of the instant provisional registration”).

on May 18, 2012 due to the attachment on May 16, 2012, DefendantCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DefendantCC”) completed the additional registration of seizure of ownership transfer claim regarding each of the instant provisional registrations on May 18, 2012, and completed the additional registration of provisional attachment of each of the instant provisional registrations on July 31, 2012 due to the Seoul East Eastern District Court’s provisional attachment order No. 000Kadan0000 on July 31, 2012.

C. Accordingly, on August 27, 2013, the Plaintiff notified Defendant BBB of the obligation to pay the purchase and sale advance payment under the instant agreement, setting the time limit as of September 15, 2013, and notified Defendant BBB of the performance of the obligation to pay the purchase and sale advance payment. In the event of failure to perform the said obligation by September 15, 2013, the Plaintiff declared that the instant agreement would be rescinded on September 16, 2013 without the intention of rescission. This reached Defendant BBB at around that time. Since then, Defendant BB failed to perform the obligation to pay the purchase and sale advance payment to the Plaintiff by September 15, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition]