Busan District Court 2014Gadan22597

It is in accordance with the rule of experience that the delinquent's intention to commit suicide is also known at the time of the disposition of deficit.

The fact that the delinquent taxpayer and the defendant are women, and that the plaintiff has already notified the defendant that the sale and purchase between the delinquent taxpayer and the defendant constitutes a gift in substance, etc., it is in accord with the rule of experience to view that the delinquent taxpayer's intention to kill was also known at the time of the disposition of the instant loss.

2015Na41425 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

BB

October 14, 2015

November 4, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.

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

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked. The reservation to sell and purchase real estate listed in the separate sheet between the defendant and CCC shall be revoked. The defendant will implement the procedure for each cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration completed by the Busan District Court No. 0000 on April 12, 2010 with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet, and each registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by the receipt No. 0000 on April 27, 2011 of the same registry office.

The reasoning for this Court's explanation is that the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul High Court) in 5th 20th 20th 10th 5th 20th 5th 5th 20th 6th 19th 6th 19th 6th 19th 6th 19th 6th 6th 19th 6th 6th 19th 6th 1

[Plaintiff asserts to the effect that on January 9, 2013, which was after the instant disposition on deficits, the Plaintiff did not know that the instant shares were not owned by CCC or that there was no property value until a delinquent tracking investigation was conducted in 2014, such as seizing the instant shares, etc. However, the fact that the dismissal judgment as stated in paragraph (c) (7) was rendered on January 25, 2013 and the judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive on March 8, 2013 is significant in this court. The Plaintiff was aware of the cause for revocation of the said judgment at any late, and it is evident that the instant lawsuit was filed one year after the date when the said judgment became final and conclusive. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted after the conclusion of the judgment).

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.