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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. In a case where a debtor’s act of reducing liability property, thereby inducing or deepening the shortage of common security for general creditors, whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the degree of insolvency among the debtor’s entire responsible property; (b) the economic purpose of a juristic act; (c) the reasonableness of the pertinent act, which is the means to realize the economic purpose of a juristic act; (d) the reasonableness of the pertinent act; (e) the duty to perform an act; and (e) the degree of perception of the parties as to the risks of joint security, such as the existence of a collusion between the debtor and the beneficiary

In addition, unlike the case where a debtor, who is in excess of his/her obligation, transfers active property to some of the creditors by payment in kind, may, in principle, constitute a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, unlike the case where the debtor makes a repayment according to the principal of obligation to a certain creditor. However, in such a case, in light of the general standard of judgment as seen above, if the act cannot be seen as an act detrimental to the general creditor, the establishment of a fraudulent act may

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da52416, Mar. 10, 201; 2011Da28045, Oct. 13, 2011). Moreover, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, the beneficiary bears the burden of proving that he/she was a fraudulent act. In such a case, the beneficiary bears the burden of proving himself/herself. In order to recognize that he/she was a bona fide person, objective and objective evidence, etc. should be supported, and only a statement of the debtor’s unilateral statement or a statement of the third party, etc., is based on the same.