Defendants, Gi Nam ("Debtor") and Yeong Nam (collectively Debtor and Yeong Nam shall be referred to hereinafter as "Defendants"), are married. Their son, David Nam, was charged with several criminal offenses in connection with a robbery and murder. Complaint ¶ 11 & Exhibit A; Defendants' Answer to Complaint ("Answer") ¶ 11. Pursuant to a Certification of Bail and Discharge ("Bail Surety Agreement") signed on January 12, 1998, Debtor agreed to serve as surety for the $1,000,000 bail set as a condition for his son's release from jail. Id. On April 6, 1998, after the Debtor's son failed to appear for a pre-trial status listing regarding the aforementioned criminal charges, a judgment ("Judgment") for $1,000,018.50 was entered against Debtor. Complaint ¶ 13; Answer ¶ 13. As of April 6, 1998 to the present, Debtor's debts exceeded his assets. Complaint ¶ 14; Answer ¶ 14.
On May 19, 1999, Debtor filed a Voluntary Petition for Relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Complaint ¶ 3; Answer ¶ 3. Debtor listed the Judgment in his Schedules.
On June 11, 1999, the Chapter 7 Trustee, Marvin Krasney ("Trustee"), commenced this adversary proceeding against Debtor and his wife by filing a complaint ("Complaint"). The Complaint contains two counts. Count I is based on 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1) and alleges that within one year before filing his bankruptcy case, Debtor "transferred assets for the purpose of hindering, delaying or defrauding creditors including the City." Complaint ¶ 21. Count II is based on 11 U.S.C. § 544(a) and the Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. In this Count, the Trustee asserts that Debtor and his wife made transfers of Debtor's assets, without adequate consideration, in order to defraud the City and prevent it from recovering on the Judgment. Id. at ¶ 27-32.
On August 9, 1999, Debtor testified at the § 341 hearing for creditors. Motion ¶ 3; Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Against Defendants ("Defendants' Answer") ¶ 3. He was questioned by the Trustee and his counsel, Steven Schain, Esquire. Transcript from § 341 Hearing, dated 8/9/99 ("Transcript, 8/9/99"). In response to these individuals' questions, Debtor stated in relevant part:
Q. Mr. Nam, what caused you to file bankruptcy?
A. Because I owe million dollars to the City. I cannot really pay for it.
* * * * * *
Q. In the year preceding that May 1999 bankruptcy, did you travel outside of the United States?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you go?
A. South Korea
* * * * * *
Q. How many times did you go to South Korea?
A. Two times.
* * * * * *
Q. When?
A. As I believe, March the 4th, first time. Second time, April something. I actually do not remember what date.
Q. Would both the March date and the April date be in the calendar year 1999?
A. That\'s correct.
Q. Did you go to Korea by yourself?
A. With my wife in March. April, yes, I go with my wife.
* * * * * *
Q. For what purpose did you to South Korea?
A. First time because my son turned into police department. We went to see what\'s going on. That\'s why my wife and I go.
* * * * * *
Q. How about the second time?
A. Second time because my lawyer — his name is Jeffrey Landis told me — Mr. Frank Debtor\'s counsel: Let me stop you. You shouldn\'t say — you\'re not to testify concerning your conversations with Mr. Landis.
Q. If you can, Mr. Nam, without discussing what your lawyer told you, can you tell me the general reason for the second trip?
A. Because return to ask my son to come back and (inaudible).
Q. What did he say?
A. He don\'t want to come back to America.
Q. How long were you in Korea the first time this year?
A. Total four weeks.
* * * * * *
Q. How many weeks on your first March of 1999 trip?
A. Three weeks.
Q. Would it be fair to say the second trip was only for one week?
A. Yes.
Q. You mentioned earlier that one of the reasons you\'re in bankruptcy is you owe the City money, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you first become aware that you owed the City money?
A. I think my knowledge, this year, January 15th come around. I first time knew Philadelphia — City want to sue me.
Q. If I understand you correctly, are you saying you first became aware March 15th of 1999?
A. Yes.
Q. So you didn\'t know prior to that —
A. No, at all.
Q. Do you remember entering into an agreement — a (inaudible) agreement with the City?
A. Because I do not really know about English that they paper. I cannot able to read more. So what actually saying that, I do not know.
* * * * * *
Q. If I\'m reading that correctly, in 1998, you declared your son, David, a dependent?
A. Because —
Mr. Frank: Wait. Just answer the question. Did you declare him —
The Witness: Yes.
Mr. Frank: — as a dependent?
The Witness: Yes.
Mr. Frank: Okay.
Q. Why is that?
A. 1998, I often go to the jail. I give to him all the money. I provide all the clothes. When he come home, I provide everything, so I thought I was allowed to claim as my dependent.
* * * * * *
Q. Did you pay any money to anyone in Korea during your trips in the last year?
A. Yes.
Q. Who did you pay money to?
A. My mother.
Q. Your mother?
A. Yeah. Not pay, it is present. It is — culture to obey parents. I should give it to present. It is not pay. It is a present. She is 83.
* * * * * *
Q. So you didn\'t pay any money to an attorney to represent your son?
A. No, I didn\'t. My wife did.
Q. Oh. Do you know how much your wife paid?
A. As I believe, I actually don\'t know. I know paid more than 10,000.
* * * * * *
Q. Other than the money paid by your wife to the lawyer in South Korea and other than the money that you gave to your mother, did either you and your wife spend any money in South Korea other than for food —
A. Actually —
Q. - and shelter?
A. — we give it to my mother. My wife did it because in my culture, man doesn\'t do that. Wife (inaudible) all the family, so money is actually — when trip leaving somebody, man don\'t do it.
Id. at 7-13, 16-17.
On August 11, 1999, the Trustee served a set of interrogatories and document requests on each of the Defendants. Motion ¶ 4; Defendants' Answer ¶ 4. On or about September 25, 1999, Defendants served responses to the discovery requests. Motion ¶ 7; Answer ¶ 7. See also Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery ("Defendants' Memorandum") at 7 (stating that on September 24, 1999, Defendants served responses to the Trustee's discovery requests). On November 15, 1999, the Trustee filed his Motion contending that Defendants failed to fully respond to the discovery requests and seeking an order compelling them to do so. More specifically, the Trustee seeks to compel Debtor to fully respond to Interrogatory Nos. 12, 13 and 17 and his wife to fully respond to Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 17.1 In response to these interrogatories, Debtor and his wife each raised an objection based on their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Interrogatory Nos. 12, 13 and 17 and Debtor's answers to them follow:
12. Identify and describe in great detail your understanding of the Bail Surety Agreement including, but not limited to, when you became aware of it, what its terms are, why you entered into it, what obligation it imposed, what money you intended to pay yours sic $1,000,000 obligation upon entering into the agreement and all communications you had with Yeong Nam, David Nam, or anyone else regarding the Bail Surety Agreement.
Debtor\'s Answer: Defendant Gi Nam understood the bail agreement to mean that in the event that his son did not appear for court, he would lose the $100,000 he had paid for the bail bond. He did not understand that he would be liable for more than $1 million if his son did not appear for court. Based on General Objection No. 1,2 marital privilege, federal and state constitutional privileges against self-incrimination and attorney-client privilege, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory\'s request for information concerning communications.3
13. Identify and describe in great detail your understanding of the Judgment including, but not limited to, when you became aware of it, what money you intended to pay your $1,000,000 obligation, and all communications you had with Yeong Nam David Nam, or anyone else regarding the Judgment.
Debtor\'s Answer: Defendant Gi Nam did not understand that a judgment had been entered against him until he received some papers in the mail from Steven Schain in January 1999. Based on General Objection No. 1, marital privilege, federal and state constitutional privileges against self-incrimination and attorney client privilege, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory\'s request for information concerning communications.
17. Identify and describe in great detail all communications you have had with David Nam following his January 1997 arrest including, but not limited to, the dates of each communication, the substance of each communication, and if oral, the location of each communication.
...
