in excess of obligations, it is fraudulent that the property was offered as security to the

The act that a debtor in excess of his/her obligation offers his/her real estate as security to a defendant who is one of the obligees, constitutes a fraudulent act as a reduction of joint security in relation to the general creditors of the debtor, barring any special circumstances.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

201Chap 27236 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

The AA

January 10, 2013

January 24, 2013

1. As to each real estate listed in the attached list, and

A. The contract to establish a right to collateral security concluded on March 15, 201 between the Defendant and the PartyB is revoked.

B. The Defendant shall implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the neighboring establishment that was completed as No. 16834 on March 15, 2011 by Suwon District Court Branch Branch Branch of Sung-B.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

"가. 정BB과 김CC은 부부로서 2011. 3. 10. 주식회사 DD리서치(이하DD리서치'라고 한다)에게 김CC 소유인 서울 OO구 OO동 00000대 224.9㎡， 정BB 소유인 같은 동 0000 대 233.8㎡ 및 검CC과 정BB 소유(각 1/2지분씩)인 위 토지들의 지상건물(이하 '이 사건 OO동 각 부동산'이라 한다)을 000원에 매도하되， 계약금 000원은 계약체결일에 지급하고， 융자금 000원 및 임대 차보증금반환채무 000원은 DD리서치가 인수하며， 잔금 00원은 2011. 3. 18.까지 지급하기로 하는 매매계약을 체결하였다. 정BB과 김CC은 2011. 3. 10. 이 사건 OO동 각 부동산에 관하여 DD리서치 명의로 소유권이전등기를 경료해 주었다.",나. 정BB은 2011. 5. 31. 자신의 명의로 되어 있던 위 OO동 토지 및 건물 지분의 양도에 따른 양도소득세 269，615，659원을 예정신고한 후 자진납부기한 내에 납부하지 아니하였다. 이에 원고 산하 수영세무서장은 2011. 8. 10. 정BB에 대하여 0000원을 양도소득세로 경정결정하고(이하 !이 사건 조세채권'이라 한다)， 납부기한을 2011.

8. A tax notice was issued on December 28, 201. As of December 28, 2011, AB is delinquent in total of KRW 000 won for capital gains tax and KRW 000 for additional dues.

C. On the other hand, on March 15, 2011, PB concluded a mortgage agreement between the Defendant, who is the birth partner of PB, on the attached list (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”), with the maximum debt amount of 00 won, and with the obligor HasO, and with the Defendant as the Defendant, the registration of establishment of a mortgage was completed on the same day as the receipt of the registration office for the branch court of Suwon District for the branch court of Sungwon District on each of the above real estate under Article 16834.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 6-1 to 3, Eul evidence 2-l to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The establishment of preserved claims and fraudulent acts;

(a)the existence of preserved claims;

Although it is required that a claim that can be protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen before the act was conducted as a matter of principle, it is highly probable that at the time of the fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of the claim, and that the right should be established in the near future in the near future, and that the possibility is realized in the near future, and that the claim has been created in the near future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37821, Mar. 23, 2001). However, since the tax claim in this case was established after the conclusion of the mortgage contract in this case, but it was already conducted at the time of the conclusion of the mortgage contract in this case, it was highly probable that the claim in this case was established based on the near future legal relationship, and its probability has not yet been established, and thus, the Plaintiff’s tax claim in this case against B is subject to the obligee’s right of revocation.

B. Establishment of fraudulent act

1) Determination as to whether a PartyB is insolvent

A) Considering the facts that there is no dispute between the parties, and that there is no more than 7 BB, and each of the above evidence No. 8, it is possible to recognize that there was 00 m20 m20 m20 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m39.910 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,000 m2,00.

B) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence and evidence set forth above, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers) and the whole purport of the argument at the time of the conclusion of the instant mortgage contract, it can be acknowledged that there was KRW 000 of the loan obligation to MM bank, ② BL or borrowed loan obligation to the defendant, ③ the tax obligation of this case 00 won.

C) According to the above facts, the active property of YB as of the time of the conclusion of the instant mortgage contract was 000 won (=00 won +00 won). However, the small property was 000 won (=00 won +00 won +00 won) and had already been in excess of the obligation.

2) Whether there exists an intention to cause harm

Then, the act of JungB, which had already been in excess of debt, offered its real estate as security to the defendant among creditors, constitutes a fraudulent act as a result of reduced joint security in relation to the general creditors of JungB, barring special circumstances, and dueB knew that the mortgage contract in this case would prejudice general creditors in light of the property status of Jung at the time of signing the mortgage contract, the time when the mortgage contract in this case was concluded, and the relationship between JungB and the defendant, and the defendant's bad faith is presumed to be the beneficiary.

C. Defendant’s bona fide defense

The Defendant, at the time of entering into the instant mortgage contract, was unaware of the financial status or purpose of evading debts of YB, and the Defendant borrowed 00 won from YL to YB on March 8, 2011, and the Defendant concluded the instant mortgage contract to secure the above loan, which constitutes a bona fide beneficiary, and accordingly, the Defendant’s defense was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was bona fide at the time, who was the beneficiary, was unaware of the presumption of bad faith only with the above facts, and there was no evidence to prove that the Defendant was bona fide at the time, and there was no reason to prove the Defendant’s defense.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the mortgage contract of this case concluded between EBB and the defendant should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and it is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case as to each of the real estate of this case.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.