[2] Whether an obligor in excess of his/her obligation constitutes a fraudulent act by transferring active property to some of the creditors as payment in kind (affirmative in principle)

[3] The case holding that it is difficult to readily conclude that an act of a debtor in excess of his/her obligation transferred his/her right to lease on a deposit basis and the right to lease on a deposit basis to a specific creditor

[2] Unlike the case where an obligor, in principle, transfers active property to some of the creditors in excess of his/her obligation to a payment in kind, may constitute a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors, in principle, unlike the case where the obligor performs the obligation to a certain creditor according to the principal place of obligation. However, in such a case, in a case where the act cannot be deemed as an act detrimental to the general creditor, the establishment of a fraudulent act may be denied.

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that it is difficult to conclude that the above transfer act constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to other creditors, considering the fact that the debtor in excess of his/her obligation transferred the right to lease on a deposit basis and the right to lease on a deposit basis as the sole property to a specific creditor as payment for part of his/her obligation was the only way to promote the reorganization of the company in excess of his/

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is nothing more than the purport of disputing the selection of evidence and fact-finding which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below as a fact-finding court, and it is difficult to view it as a legitimate grounds of appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it cannot be deemed that there was a

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In a case where a debtor's act of reducing liability property causes or deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors, whether the act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation shall be determined based on whether the act ultimately constitutes an act detrimental to general creditors, by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the weight of the debtor's entire responsible property in the whole responsible property; (b) the degree of insolvency; (c) the justification of the economic purpose of the juristic act; (d) the reasonableness of the act in question, which is the means of its realization; (e) the reasonableness of the act in question; (e) the reasonableness of the act in question; and (e) the degree of perception

However, unlike the case where an obligor transfers active property in excess of his/her obligation to some of the creditors as a payment in kind, may, in principle, constitute a fraudulent act in relation to other creditors (see Supreme Court Decisions 8Da23186, Sept. 12, 1989; 90Da27198, Nov. 23, 1990; 96Da23207, Oct. 29, 1996; 96Da3647, Jun. 27, 1997; 97Da57320, May 12, 1998; 99Da2916, Nov. 12, 1999; 2000Da3647, Oct. 26, 207; 2005Da1647, Feb. 16, 2005; 200Da3647, Feb. 16, 2009).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant's act of taking over the obligation of lease on a deposit basis on the condition that the non-party's act of taking over the obligation of lease on a deposit basis would not be enough to maintain transaction with the non-party on the ground that it is difficult for the defendant to pay the goods to the defendant when the sale of automobile blodddy dydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydydyddydydydydgydydydydydydgydgydydyds.

In addition to the aforementioned circumstances indicated in the record as appropriate, the following circumstances revealed by the court below, namely, at the time of the transfer contract of this case, the defendant appears to have been the maximum source of goods supply and the maximum amount of creditors of the non-definite at the time of the transfer contract of this case. It appears that only the way to develop new markets while maintaining transaction relations with the defendant was the only way to promote the economic rehabilitation of the company in which the defendant was in excess of the debts. Thus, while entering into the transfer contract of this case, the non-definite was taking measures to allow the defendant to continue to use the building of this case which was the object of the right to lease on a deposit basis under the agreement with the defendant, and at the same time, the non-party who was secured by the right to lease on a deposit basis to repay the loan to the defendant on behalf of the non-party who was the object of the right to lease on a deposit basis at the time of the transfer contract of this case, it is difficult to conclude that the transfer contract of this case was substantially aggravated due to the circumstances of the transfer contract of this case.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the transfer contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act is just and acceptable.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal concerning the establishment of a fraudulent act of transferring monetary claims in lieu of repayment.

The Supreme Court Decision 2006Da47301 Decided February 23, 2007 cited in the ground of appeal is different from the case in light of the circumstances that should be considered in order to determine the existence of a piracy, and thus it is not appropriate to invoke the case in this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)