In a case where the issue was whether Gap's donation to Eul constitutes a fraudulent act, the case affirming the judgment below holding that it is difficult to view that Gap, an obligor, was in excess of his liability when adding the check held at the time of donation to Eul's active property.

In a case where the issue was whether Gap's donation to Eul constitutes a fraudulent act, the case affirming the judgment below holding that it is difficult to view that Gap, an obligor, was in excess of his liability when adding the check held at the time of donation to Eul's active property.

Article 406(1) of the Civil Act

Korea

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na96931 decided November 8, 2013

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

After comprehensively taking account of the evidence, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim of this case on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Nonparty was in excess of liability due to the Nonparty’s holding of the KRW 5 billion check at the time of donation of this case.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the obligor’s active asset calculation in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act, or

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.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)