1. Fraudulent act subject to creditor's right of revocation is a debtor's property juristic act that causes reduction of the debtor's whole property in principle, and therefore, even if the debtor's property juristic act is the debtor's property, it shall not be considered a fraudulent act if it does not cause reduction of

In addition, in a case where money is transferred to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may be based on a variety of legal causes. As such, it cannot be readily concluded that the remittance was a fraudulent act causing a substantial decrease in the whole property of the remitter with only the fact of remittance, without any specific legal cause.

(1) On October 11, 2012, Supreme Court Decisions 201Da82667 Decided July 6, 2012; 2012Da30861 Decided July 6, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Da82667, Oct. 11, 201; 208Da30861, Jul. 6, 201). The lower court determined that: (a) the agreement between B and the Defendant was made to keep and use the money transferred to the account in the name of the Defendant in relation to the money transferred by the Defendant in each of the instant accounts; and (b) the transfer of the money transferred between B and the Defendant constituted a fraudulent act among the general creditors related to each of the instant accounts.

3. However, as the fact-finding and judgment of the court below, each of the accounts in this case was used under B with the consent or understanding of the defendant for the management of funds related to the business in B.