Whether the obligor’s efforts to repay and the obligee’s attitude after the act alleged as a fraudulent act can be considered as indirect facts in determining the existence of the obligor’s intent to commit a fraudulent act (affirmative)

In determining the debtor's intention of deception, it should be based on the circumstances at the time of the fraudulent act. However, in determining the existence of the debtor's effort to repay and the creditor's attitude after the act alleged as a fraudulent act, it can be considered as indirect facts together with other circumstances.

Article 406 of the Civil Act

Han-Energy Fran Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Samsung, Attorney Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Kim Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na26216 delivered on May 7, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence of the court below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: the Plaintiff’s 10-day loan and oil supply contract was concluded between the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 who operated the gas station in Chungcheongnam-nam ( Address omitted); the process of changing the transaction conditions; the fact that the non-party 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer on the gift of each of the instant real estate due to the non-party 1’s address; the subsequent transaction details and circumstances; and other facts as indicated in its reasoning, it was difficult to conclude the Plaintiff’s loan amount of KRW 100,000 to the non-party 1 for the above 0-year loan and the non-party 10-year loan amount of KRW 100,000,000 to the non-party 1 for the above 0-year loan and the non-party 1 for the above 10-year loan amount to the non-party 1 for the above 10-year loan and the non-party 1 for the above 10-year loan amount to the Defendant 1 for 10-year loan.

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment by the court below are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principle of the right to revoke the fraudulent act or in violation of the judicial precedents. In addition, in determining the debtor's intention, the circumstances at the time of the fraudulent act should be based, as well as in determining the debtor's endeavor to repay and the creditor's attitude after the act alleged as the fraudulent act can be used as indirect facts in determining the existence of the intention to commit the fraudulent act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)