Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na52702

The defendant is merely a subsequent purchaser and is deemed to have received the repayment of the debt without knowing that the debtor's act of donation constitutes a fraudulent act.

(B) In light of the following: (a) the Defendant is merely a subsequent purchaser, and there is no circumstance to deem that the Defendant knew or was aware of the debtor’s credit status as to the gift act between the beneficiary and the debtor; and (b) the Defendant appears to have received the repayment of the obligation with the knowledge of the donor’s identity between the debtor and the beneficiary, or without

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2013Da212080 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Park AA

on January 23, 2014

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

원심은 채택 증거에 의하여 그 판시와 같은 사실을 인정한 다음, 피고는 주식회사 〇〇〇와 조BB 사이의 증여행위 자체를 몰랐거나 그 증여가 사해행위에 해당함을 알지 못하고 자기앞수표를 받았다고 볼 수 있다고 판단하였다.

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the burden of proof against the subsequent purchaser's bad faith in a revocation lawsuit, or in violation of logical and empirical rules and

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.