In cases where a debtor’s act of reducing liability property causes or deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors, the standard of determining whether a fraudulent act is applicable, and the standard of determining a fraudulent act in cases where a debtor in excess of liability transfers other claims that are not the original purpose of the obligation with respect to the performance of his/her obligation only to many creditors.

Article 406(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 2007Da2718 Decided September 30, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1967), Supreme Court Decision 2011Da28045 Decided October 13, 201 (Gong2011Ha, 2342), Supreme Court Decision 2011Da107818 Decided March 27, 201 (Gong2014Sang, 925)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other (LLC, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na61457 decided September 13, 2012

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where a debtor's act of reducing liability property causes or deepens the shortage of common security for general creditors, whether such act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to revocation shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the proportion of the debtor's entire responsible property among the debtor's whole responsible property, the degree of insolvency, the legitimacy of the economic purpose of the juristic act and its realization means, the reasonableness of the act in question, the degree of perception of the parties concerned about the shortage of common security risks, such as the existence of the debtor's and the beneficiary's collusion, and other various circumstances revealed in the act, and ultimately, whether such act constitutes an act detrimental to the general creditor or not. Furthermore, the act of transferring claims and other active property other than the original purpose of the obligation to some of the creditors, unlike the case where the debtor executes the obligation to certain creditors in accordance with the content of the obligation. In such a case, in light of the general standard of judgment on the existence of intent as seen above, if the act cannot ultimately be seen as an act detrimental to the general creditor, the establishment of a fraudulent act may be denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da738.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that Defendant 1’s transfer of the instant claim to Defendant Korea Victim’s Claim constitutes a fraudulent act that causes lack of common obligees’ joint security and constitutes a creditor’s fraudulent act that causes damage to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties, and that Defendant 1’s intent to commit suicide was sufficiently recognized, barring any special circumstances, barring any special circumstance. Furthermore, the lower court determined that it was difficult to view that, in full view of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, there was any special circumstance to deem that the instant claim assignment contract is not a fraudulent act, or that Defendant Korea Victim’s Credit Union was unaware of the fact that the instant claim assignment contract would prejudice the

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. It is not recognized that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of fraudulent act alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant National Victim Claim Foundation against logical and empirical rules or free evaluation of evidence.

Meanwhile, Defendant 1 filed an appeal against the part against Defendant 1 among the judgment below, but in relation thereto, no grounds of appeal are stated in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief.

Therefore, all appeals are 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.

[Attachment] List of Appointeds: Omitted

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)