2014Gaz. 101908 (Counterclaim)

2014Na2029825 (Counterclaim) Revocation of Fraudulent Act

2014Gaz. 101908 Judgment (Counterclaim)

2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim is dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are all the Defendant (in total, the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim).

b)the plaintiff will bear

(a) Main claim;

Between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) and the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) in the Republic of Korea, joint Defendant qqqs (hereinafter referred to as the “qqqs”) of the first instance trial, the Organizing Committee of the 2013 New Staff EXPO deposited 152,096,40 gold No. 1750 of Suwon District Court in order to confirm that the right to claim payment of deposit payment was the Plaintiff (this claim was accepted by the court of first instance, but was excluded from the scope of the trial for the first instance because the Defendant did not appeal).

(b) Counterclaim;

1) The assignment contract concluded on July 9, 2013 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea with respect to the claims listed in the separate sheet between the Plaintiff and the qqq shall be revoked.

2) The plaintiff shall notify the Suwon District Court of the purport that the plaintiff transferred the right to deposit funds of KRW 152,096,400 deposited under Nos. 1750 of the Suwon District Court for the qqqq 2013 and that he transferred the above claims to the Republic of Korea (the public official of the competent Suwon District Court for Yangyang Branch Branch Deposit).

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On June 14, 2012, the Plaintiff and the qqqq comparison were to enter into a contract for construction works in which the Plaintiff jointly receives 80% of the total construction cost from the Organizing Committee for the 2013 www International Gardens (hereinafter referred to as the “Organizing Committee”) to the total construction cost of KRW 3,016,00,000, and the construction period from June 14, 2012 to November 30, 2013; the Plaintiff’s representative entered into a contract for construction works in which the qqq is jointly implemented 20%; the total construction cost of February 5, 2013 to KRW 2,674,39,500,000; and the total construction amount of the construction cost was modified to the total construction cost of KRW 13,50,000; and each of the construction cost was modified to the total construction cost of KRW 6,639,503; and

B. Around July 9, 2013, the qqqs entered into a contract with the Organizing Committee on the assignment of claims in the annexed list of KRW 152,096,40 (hereinafter “instant claims”) with respect to the Plaintiff. On the same day, the Plaintiff to whom the said assignment notification authority was delegated was notified by mail of contents certification with the Organizing Committee on the same day, and the notification was sent to the Organizing Committee on July 10, 2013.

C. Meanwhile, on August 5, 2013, Defendant Republic of Korea seized the amount of the above amount in arrears (including increased additional dues and expenses for disposition on default added later) from among the construction cost claims under the Organizational Committee for the reason that the qqqs 153,351,370 won was delinquent in national taxes of KRW 153,351,370 and notified the Organizational Committee thereof.

D. On September 3, 2013, the Organizing Committee deposited the amount of KRW 152,096,40 (152,096,400) from the Suwon District Court as depositee, based on Article 487 of the Civil Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff was served with a notice of the seizure of claims due to the failure to pay national taxes during the qqqs and the assignment of claims between the Plaintiff during the qqqs and the Plaintiff was made (hereinafter referred to as the “deposit of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 2 through 7, and 9's statements, Gap's 2 to 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment as to the counterclaim

A. The parties' assertion

Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the assignment contract of this case constitutes fraudulent act conducted in excess of debt qqq and that the Plaintiff’s intent is recognized as the beneficiary, and that the Plaintiff’s revocation of the assignment of this case’s assignment contract and the Plaintiff’s restoration to its original state is obligated to transfer the said deposit withdrawal claim to the qqq and notify the Republic of Korea of the above assignment.

With respect to this, the Plaintiff already agreed that both the construction work equivalent to the portion of the qqqs during the period of the instant assignment contract will be executed by the Plaintiff, and the qqqs will pay only the installment of KRW 57,204,180 as required for administrative procedures, etc. during the advance payment and the remainder will be received from the passbook of the qqqs that the Plaintiff manages as the Plaintiff’s actual share. Thus, the assignment of the instant assignment of claims asserted that the instant assignment of claims does not constitute fraudulent act since the Plaintiff, who actually performed the construction, becomes the obligee directly against the ordering party, and thus, does not constitute a fraudulent act.

B. Determination

1) As a matter of course, a creditor’s claim for the repayment of an obligation does not interfere with it on the ground that there exists another creditor as a matter of course, and the debtor also does not refuse the performance of an obligation on the ground that there is another creditor as it bears the obligation to perform an obligation according to the principal place of the obligation. As such, even in cases where the debtor’s repayment to a specific creditor under excess of an obligation results in a decrease in the joint security of other creditors, such performance does not constitute a fraudulent act in principle unless the debtor, in collusion with some creditors, has an intent to harm other creditors, and thus, it does not constitute a fraudulent act, unless he/she has performed the obligation in collusion with some other creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da1205, Jun. 24, 2003).

2) 이와 같은 법리에 비추어 이 사건에 관하여 살피건대, 갑 제6호증, 을 제1 내지 3호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 이 사건 채권양도계약 당시 이미 qqqq조경이 2012년 귀속 법인세 등 적어도 164,868,750원의 국세를 체납하고 있었고, 2013. 5. 22.부터 2013. 6. 16.까지 세무조사를 받은 결과 과거 사업연도에 대한 법인세, 부가가치세 등 이 부과되어 2013. 9.부터 2013. 12.까지 납부기한이 도래하는 국세가 합계 283,132,630원(가산금 포함)에 이르는 사실을 인정할 수 있고, qqqq조경이 이 사건 채권양도계약 체결일인 2013. 7. 9.경 채무초과 상태인 사실은 원고와 피고 사이에 다툼이 없으나, 한편 갑 제8, 10 내지 13호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고와 qqqq조경은 2012. 10.경 qqqq조경의 지분에 해당하는 공사를 원고가 책임시공하고, 공사 지체상금, 현장품질관리와 하자보수, 각종 보험료의 납부 등을 원고가 모두 책임지고 이행하며, qqqq조경의 지분에 해당하는 공사계약금액 538,451,000원 중 산재보험료, 고용보험료 등을 가감한 정산기초금액의 12%인 57,204,180원을 발주처의 선급금에서 qqqq조경의 몫으로 정산하고, qqqq조경의 기성금은 qqqq조경이 새로 발급하는 통장으로 입금 받되, 원고가 그 통장과 도장을 관리하기로 하는 내용의 공동도급시공협정(이하 '이 사건 협정'이라 한다)을 체결한 사실, 2012. 11. 1. qqqq조경은 선급금으로 받은 112,000,000원에서 부가세와 이 사건 협정에 따라 자신의 몫으로 하기로 한 57,204,180원을 공제한 나머지 금액에 상당한 44,614,434원이 들어있는 qqqq조경의 통장(국민은행 ******-**-******)과 예금인출에 필요한 정보를 원고에게 제공한 사실, 이후 원고는 qqqq조경의 통장을 관리하면서 준비위원회로부터 입금되는 공사대금으로 원고의 eee에 대한 하도급대금을 지급하는 등 이 사건 협정에 따라 준비위원회로부터 qqqq조경의 통장으로 입금되는 공사대금을 사용한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, qqqq조경은 2013. 7. 9.경 이 사건 채권을 원고에게 양도하는 내용의 이 사건 채권양도계약을 체결하고 원고는 같은날 위 채권양도사실을 조직위원회에 확정일자 있는 내용증명우편으로 통지하여 그 통지가 2013. 7. 10. 조직위원회에 도달한 사실은 앞서 인정한 바와 같은바, 위 인정사실에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① qqqq조경은 대외적으로는 조직위원회에 대하여 538,451,000원의 공사대금채권을 가진다고 볼 수 있지만(대법원 2013. 2. 28. 선고 2012다107532 판결 참조), 원고와 qqqq조경 사이에서는 원고가 이 사건 협정에 따라 자신의 지분비율을 넘어 qqqq조경의 공사까지 수행함으로써 위 공사대금이 최종적으로 원고에게 귀속되는 것으로 정하였던 점, ② 이 사건 협정에 의하면 qqqq조경은 조직위원회로부터 지급받을 공사대금이 입금되는 통장을 원고가 보관・관리하도록 함으로써 이 사건 공사대금채권이 실제 발생하기 이전부터 원고가 이 사건 공사대금을 지급받아 사용할 수 있는 권한을 준 것으로 볼 수 있는 점, ③ qqqq조경은 조직위원회로부터 공사대금을 지급받더라도 원고와의 관계에서 그 공사대금을 지급해 주어야 할 의무를 부담하고 있고, qqqq조경은 그 의무의 이행 방법으로 이 사건 채권양도약정을 통해 원고로 하여금 직접 조직위원회로부터 공사대금을 지급받을 수 있도록 한 것으로 보이는 점, ④ qqqq조경이 이 사건 공사대금채권을 양도한 것이 세무조사를 받은 직후이기는 하지만, 원고는 qqqq조경이 세무조사를 받았는지, qqqq조경의 채무가 얼마인지 등을 알 수 있는 지위에 있지 않았고, 이를 알고 있었다고 인정할 자료도 없는 점 등을 종합해 보면, 이 사건 채권양도는 원고와 qqqq조경과 사이에서 qqqq조경이 조직위원회로부터 수령하여 원고에게 지급하여야 할 공사대금을 원고가 조직위원회로부터 직접 수령할 수 있도록 한 것으로서 채무의 본지에 따른 것이라고 봄이 상당하고, 이 사건 채권양도가 qqqq건설과 원고의 통모에 의하여 다른 채권자를 해하는 의사를 가지고 행해진 것이라고 단정할 수 없으며, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's counterclaim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the part as to the counterclaim of this case in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with the conclusion different. Thus, it is revoked by accepting the plaintiff's appeal, and it is so decided as per Disposition.