1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. In a case where a debtor has engaged in a series of property disposal activities, in principle, it shall be judged based on whether each act causes insolvency. However, in a case where there are special circumstances to see a series of acts as a single act, it shall be determined based on whether the overall act is harmful as a whole. Whether there are such special circumstances is identical to the other party to the disposition, whether each disposition is close to time, whether the other party and the debtor are specially related, and whether the motive or opportunity for each disposition are the same.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da34740 Decided March 27, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da34740, Mar. 27, 2014). In a case where a creditor seeking revocation of a fraudulent act asserts that an obligor’s act of payment of money to a beneficiary is a gift to a third party, the beneficiary is dissatisfied with the intent to grant money free of charge on the ground that it constitutes denial of creditor’s assertion that the act of payment of money constitutes a gift in order to be recognized as a fraudulent act, and the burden of proof therefor lies in the part of asserting a fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da28686, May 31, 2007). In order to objectively constitute a gift, it should be interpreted that the debtor and the beneficiary have reverted money transferred as a final ownership to the beneficiary, and thus, the beneficiary accords with the intent to grant money free of charge.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). (B)

The judgment below

According to the reasons, the court below's decision is based on B's corporate bank account in its name.