Seoul High Court-2012-Na100830 (Law No. 15, 2014)

Whether an act of paying money specified in a fraudulent act constitutes a gift

“In order to constitute a donation, there must be an agreement between the parties on the grant of the money which has been transferred objectively between the debtor and the beneficiary, which is ultimately reverted to the beneficiary, and is a donation, so there is an error of incomplete deliberation in the original judgment, and the content of the judgment]

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act: Revocation and Restoration of Fraudulent Act

2014Da212780 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

-Appellant

Korea

-Appellee

○ ○

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na100830 Decided May 15, 2014

November 27, 2014

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding KRW 226,00,000 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. In a case where a debtor has engaged in a series of acts of disposal of property in succession, it should be determined on the basis of whether each act causes insolvency. However, in a case where there are special circumstances to regard a series of acts as a single act, it should be determined on the overall basis of whether the other party to the disposition is identical, whether each disposition is adjacent to time, whether the other party and the debtor are in a different relationship, and whether the motive or opportunity of each disposition is identical (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da34740, Mar. 27, 2014).

"그리고 사해행위의 취소를 구하는 채권자가 채무자의 수익자에 대한 금원 지급행위를 증여라고 주장함에 대하여, 수익자는 이를 채무자가 제3자에게 부담하는 채무에 관 한 대위변제금 등으로 받은 것이라고 다투고 있는 경우, 이는 채권자의 주장사실에 대 한 부인에 해당하므로 위 금원 지급행위가 사해행위로 인정되기 위하여는 그 금전 지급행위가 증여에 해당한다는 사실이 증명되어야 하고, 그에 대한 증명책임은 사해행위를 주장하는 측에 있다고 할 것이며(대법원 2007. 5. 31. 선고 2005다28686 판결 등 참조), 이때 그 금원 지급행위가 증여에 해당하기 위해서는 객관적으로 채무자와 수익자 사이에서 그와 같이 송금한 금전을 수익자에게 종국적으로 귀속되는 것으로서증여'하여 무상으로 공여한다는 데에 관하여 당사자 사이에 의사의 합치가 있는 것으로 해석되어야 한다(대법원 2012. 7. 26. 선고 2012다30861 판결 등 참조).", "나. 원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은, 손○○이 그 명의의 기업은행 계좌에서 그의 처인 피고(개명 전 이○○) 명의의 씨티은행 계좌(이하이 사건 계좌'라고 한다)로, ① 2008. 2. 20.부터 2008. 2. 23.까지 400,000,000원, ② 2008. 7. 15. 30,000,000원, ③ 2008. 8. 13. 70,000,000원，④ 2008. 9. 10. 850,000,000원, © 2009. 8. 22. 100,000,000 원 합계 1,450,000,000원을 송금한 사실(이하이 사건 ① 내지 ⑤ 송금'을 일괄하여이 사건 각 송금'이라 한다), 피고는 이 사건 계좌에서 손○○ 명의의 기업은행 계좌 (0000-000-0000)로 2008. 2. 27. 1,000만 원, 2008. 4. 15. 500만 원, 2008. 5. 2. 200만 원, 2008. 5. 15. 1,000만 원, 2008. 5. 27. 200만 원 합계 2,900만 원을 각 송금 하였고, 2008. 3. 21. 손○○ 의 지 인 김광모에 게 7,000만 원 , 2008. 5. 13. 1,000만 원 합계 8,000만 원을 송금한 사실, 이 사건 계좌에서 2008년 1월경부터 2010년 8월경까지 피고 명의의 씨티은행 가족카드대금으로 합계 210,386,877원이 지급되었고, 2008년 1월경부터 2010년 8월경까지의 손○○ 명의의 삼성카드 대금으로 합계 240,860,000원 이 지급된 사실, 손○○이 그 명의의 기업은행 계좌에서 이 사건 계좌로 송금한 금원 중 2억 원에 대하여 피고와 손AA에 대한 생활비 내지 양육비 명목의 부양의무를 이행하였다고 볼 수 있는 사정을 인정한 다음, 이 사건 각 송금액 합계 14억 5,000만 원 중 689,753,123원( = 1,450,000,000원 一 109,000,000원 一 451,246,877원一 200,000,000원)의 범우1 내 에서 손○○이 피고에게 이를 증여한 것으로 보고, 위 689,752,123원의 증여 행위는 사 해행위에 해당한다고 판단하였다.",나아가 원심은, 이 사건 계좌에서 손○○이 지정한 계좌로 2008. 4： 28. 송금된 5,000만 원, 2009. 3. 30. 송금된 1억 7,600만 원, 피고가 2008. 5. 30. 수표대금 명목으로 결제한 6,000만 원, 이 사건 계좌 외 피고 명의의 씨티은행 계좌에서 손○○이 지정한 계좌로 2008. 4. 21. 송금된 1억 원을 송금하였으므로 위 금원들은 증여된 것으로 볼 수 없다는 피고의 주장에 대하여, 위 각 다른 계좌의 명의자와 위 수표의 발행 내 지는 교부 명의자가 누구인지 제대로 나타나 있지 않고 그 명의자들이 손○○과 관계있는 자라고 인정할 만한 객관적인 증거가 없다는 이유로 이를 배척하였다.

In light of the above legal principles and records, although there were some inappropriate parts in the judgment of the court below, the court below is justified in holding that the court below did not agree with the defendant that ○○ and the defendant granted free of charge to the defendant for the ultimate attribution of 1.45 billion won among the total remittance amount of KRW 1.60,246,877 (=109,000,000 +451,246,877 won + +200,000 + 200,000,000 won).

라. 그러나 원심이 이 사건 계좌로부터 제3자에게 2008. 4. 28. 송금된 5,000만 원, 2009. 3. 20. 송금된 丄억 7,600만 원의 부분이 손○○과 피고 사이에 피고에게 종국적으로 귀속되도록 무상공여하였다는 범위에 포함시킨 판단은 아래와 같은 이유로 그대로 수긍할 수 없다.

1) First, we examine as to KRW 50 million remitted from the instant account on April 28, 2008.

According to the evidence adopted by the court below, ○○○ is the fact that 10,000 won was transferred from the account of this case to BB (Evidence No. 5) and April 28, 2008 to the account under the name of BB (Evidence No. 1-4). Considering the relationship between ○○○ and BB, it is highly probable that the above KRW 50,000,000, which was transferred from the account of this case to BB, was remitted to ○○○ and ○○○.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below should have deliberated and judged whether ○○○ had agreed to grant the above KRW 50 million to the Defendant free of charge. However, the court below determined that the above KRW 50 million was donated to ○○○○○ by reason of its stated reasoning. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof of a fraudulent act, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2) Next, as to KRW 176 million remitted from the Account of this case on March 20, 2009.

In light of the evidence adopted by the original court, "the person who received the transfer of KRW 176 million in connection with the transfer of the above KRW 176 million in the "Woo-man" column of the account transaction statement of this case. Although the person who received the transfer of KRW 176 million in the above KRW 176 million is not known, considering the fact that the transfer was made ○○○○, it may be deemed that the above KRW 176 million, which was remitted from the account of this case, was remitted to ○○○○, not the defendant." In light of the above legal principles, the court below should have reviewed whether the above KRW 170 million in comparison with the defendant to grant the money free of charge to the defendant. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the gift of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment of the court below.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion that the above KRW 100 million cannot be deemed to have been donated since the court below remitted KRW 100 million, which was remitted on April 21, 2008, to the limit designated by ○○○, from another cti bank account under the name of the defendant, other than the instant account, for reasons indicated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof

2. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal and the defendant's remaining grounds of appeal

The court below determined that it is reasonable to recognize as KRW 200,00,000, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the adopted evidence: (a) the Defendant engaged in economic activities continuously after marriage; (b) the Defendant did not have any active property at the time of divorce; (c) the Plaintiff did not have any portion of the Plaintiff’s debt; (d) the Defendant’s real estate owned by the Defendant exists and claims on deposits, etc.; (e) the Defendant’s family relationship and the Defendant’s family relationship; (e) the amount of money that ○○ and the Defendant’s expense was reduced to the size of expenditure; (e) the ○○○ and the Defendant’s age, price and education expenses; and (e) the amount of money that ○○ and the Defendant’s female who were the Defendant’s children have performed the duty of supporting the Defendant for child support or under the pretext of title; and (e) the extent to which ○○ and the

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and pride, and contrary to the plaintiff's ground of appeal, there is no violation of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles of the burden of proof of fraudulent act, and there is no violation of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to the defendant's ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding KRW 226,00,000 (=50,000 + KRW 176,000 + KRW 176,000) is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Plaintiff’s appeal and the remainder of the Defendant’s appeal are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.