구상금
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
A. In order to seek revocation of a fraudulent act by a creditor against the beneficiary by seeking revocation of the legal act with the debtor and to seek revocation of the act of subsequent purchase against the subsequent purchaser, the subsequent purchaser’s bad faith refers to the perception that the legal act between the debtor and the beneficiary at the time of the act of subsequent purchase would prejudice the creditor, that is, the objective requirements for the fraudulent act.
Meanwhile, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, a creditor who asserts the revocation of the debtor's bad faith has the burden of proving that the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is bad faith, not the creditor, but the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is responsible to prove the fact that the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser is bad faith. In a case where the debtor's act of disposal of the debtor's property constitutes a fraudulent act, the evidence, etc. that can be objectively and objectively satisfied when recognizing that the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser was bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act or the preceding act, shall be based on the evidence, etc., and only on the unilateral statement of the debtor or beneficiary or the third party, the subsequent purchaser is not bona fide at the time of the fraudulent act or the preceding act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da51908, May 23, 1997; 2004Da61280, Jul. 4, 2006).
The judgment below
According to its reasoning, the court below determined that the gift contract of this case entered into between B and Defendant E with respect to the real estate of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, and rejected the assertion that Defendant E constitutes a bona fide beneficiary, while Defendant Hyundai Mamotomoto Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Hyundai Mad Co., Ltd.”) continues to engage in the transaction for a considerable period of time with Company A, and the bill received from Company A as the price for the goods.