In excess of debt, all repayment to a specific creditor cannot be readily concluded as a fraudulent act.

Even in a case where the debtor performs his/her obligation to a specific creditor in excess of his/her obligation and thereby the joint security of other creditors is reduced, such repayment does not constitute a fraudulent act, in principle, unless the debtor performs his/her obligation in collusion with some of his/her creditors, with the intent to prejudice other creditors.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The assignment and takeover contract concluded on October 20, 2005 between the defendant and the non-party ○ Communications with respect to the claims listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

The defendant gives notice to the non-party ○ Industry Development Co., Ltd. and the ○○○○○ Corporation that each of the above assignment of claims was cancelled.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be recognized in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each statement of Gap 4, Eul 6, and 9 (including each number of branch numbers), respectively.

A. As of December 15, 2005, ○ Communications Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Communications”) had claims equivalent to KRW 758,195,00 in total, KRW 1,516,390,00 in total, and KRW 1,516,390,000 in respect of ○○○ Industrial Development Co., Ltd. as of December 15, 2005.

B. On December 15, 2005, ○ Communications transferred KRW 135,398,525, respectively, to Defendant ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. among the claims against ○○○ Industries Development Co., Ltd. and ○○○○○○○○○, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “transfer of claims”).

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

The plaintiff asserts that ○○ Communications (hereinafter "○ Communications") has a tax claim of approximately KRW 569,823,550 against ○○ Communications (hereinafter "○○ Communications"), and ○○ Communications has transferred the claim of this case while it was in excess of its obligation, which constitutes a fraudulent act.

Therefore, we first examine whether ○○ Communications was in excess of the obligation at the time of the instant transfer of the instant claim. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the written evidence Nos. 3 through 9 (including each number number), ○○ Communications at the time of the instant transfer of the claim, in relation to Defendant ○○ Construction, may be recognized as having been bearing the obligation equivalent to KRW 1,203,90,031,590,71,05,40, and the sum of KRW 469,823,550, and KRW 1,203,910,540, and KRW 1,203,910,540, with respect to the Plaintiff. In light of each of the above facts acknowledged, it is difficult to view that the written evidence No. 6 alone did not have any obligation exceeding the obligation at the time of the instant transfer of the claim, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the insolvency of ○○○ Communications.

Even if ○○ Communications at the time of the assignment of the instant obligation, even if the obligee’s claim was in excess of the obligation, it does not interfere with the obligee’s exercise of right, on the ground that there exists another obligee, and the obligor bears the obligation to perform the obligation according to the principal place of the obligation, and thus, it does not refuse to perform the obligation on the ground that there is another obligee. Thus, even if the obligor’s joint security at the time of the obligor’s excess of the obligation results in a decrease in the obligor’s payment of obligation to a specific obligee, it does not constitute a fraudulent act as a matter of principle, unless the obligor, in collusion with some creditors, intended to harm other creditors, and subsequently, transferred other monetary claims in lieu of the repayment of the existing monetary obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da1205, Jun. 24, 2003; 2003Da1205, Mar. 4, 2007). Thus, in light of the Plaintiff’s opinion and evidence, it did not constitute an unlawful communication with the communication of each of ○○ Construction Technology.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.