Whether a fraudulent act against another creditor is established where the debtor has issued an notarized bill to obtain full credit to a specific creditor.

The issuance of a notarized bill to a specific creditor in order for the debtor to fully satisfy his/her obligations even though the issuance of the promissory note does not increase the debtor's small assets. However, even if the legal act of the debtor does not directly cause any harm to the creditor, if the legal act of the debtor is closely related to causing damage to the creditor, such legal act of the debtor may constitute a fraudulent act, in light of the legislative intent and legal function of the system of revocation of fraudulent act and its legal function. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to other general creditors, barring any special circumstance.

Article 406(1) of the Civil Act

Samsung C&C Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Lee Im-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Sami General Law Office, Attorneys Kim Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. The issuance of a promissory note with a face value of 226,20,000 won per December 18, 1995 by Nonparty 1, the payee, the defendant, the place of issuance, and the place of payment, respectively, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff's purport is as stated in the disposition (the plaintiff seeks revocation of the act of the non-party 1's act of issuing and notarized the above promissory note to the defendant and bearing the obligation amounting to KRW 226,20,000,00.). In light of the fact that the executory acceptance in relation to notarial acts does not constitute a litigation act and is not subject to revocation of fraudulent act, the plaintiff's purport is ultimately to seek revocation of the act of issuing and accepting the above promissory note as to the part exceeding KRW 86,470,00 as a preliminary claim, which is the cause of the occurrence of the obligation arising from the promissory note as stated in the order, i.e., the legal act that caused the non-party 1's occurrence of the obligation arising from the non-party 1

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no conflict between Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 2, 4-7, 10-1 through 10, and the witness non-party 2 and 3's testimony (except for the parts of Gap's evidence No. 10-5, 7, and 10, and each part of the above witness's testimony which are not trusted after the above witness's testimony), and there is no counter-proof.

A. Nonparty 1 entered into an agency contract with the Plaintiff on January 1993 and supplied visual and related parts with the Plaintiff’s visual and related parts in the trade name (trade name omitted). Nonparty 1’s obligation to the Plaintiff due to the above trade relation is about KRW 470,00,000, around December 18, 1995 (after, the transaction continues to take place, and the amount of the goods payment obligation is increased to KRW 552,695,759, and remains at present as of February 29, 1996). Nonparty 1’s property is equivalent to KRW 400,000,000,000, total amount of the claim for the inventory and retail store of goods.

B. On December 18, 1995, the non-party 1 issued and delivered a promissory note entered in the order to the defendant. On the same day, the non-party 1 and the defendant entrusted the notary public with the authentication of the above promissory note to the Gwangju Central Joint Law Office and prepared a notarial deed that allows immediate enforcement upon the above office's claim under the above Promissory Notes No. 9115 on 1995. The defendant at that time identified the goods payment liability for the retail stores that he traded with the retail card from the non-party 1 and identified the goods payment liability for the retail stores that he traded. Based on the above notarial deed, the defendant applied for the attachment and order of 230,362,158 won for the above notarial retail over 185 persons, including the non-party 1's non-party 4 and the non-party 1's 30,362,158 won on February 29, 1996.

C. Around February 1996, Nonparty 1 failed to pay a bill issued to the Plaintiff under the above payment due date, and paid a default on payment. Nonparty 1 was locked without returning inventory, such as the visibility at the time of storage, without returning it.

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) Details of the fraudulent act;

(1) On the ground that the issuance of the above promissory note by Nonparty 1 constitutes a fraudulent act, the Defendant asserted that the issuance of the above promissory note by Nonparty 1 was not a fraudulent act since the above promissory note was issued for the security of the obligation owed by Nonparty 1.

(2) Therefore, it is difficult for the Defendant to take account of the following facts: (1) 6, (10) 1, (2) 2-1 through 6, (3) 4-2, (1) 5-2, and (7) 8-2, and (3) 9-1 to 9-4, and (4) 9-2 to secure the remainder of the loans held by the Defendant 10-2, (2) 10-2, 10-2, 10-2, 10-2, 10-2, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 10-1,000-7,000-7,00

(3) According to the above facts, Nonparty 1 predicted the above bill of exchange at the time of issuance, and in the event of default, the Plaintiff would be entitled to receive the payment for stocks and retails of its own goods in order to secure the claim, and thus, it would be difficult to repay the claim against the Defendant. Thus, Nonparty 1’s claim against the Defendant (the amount of future claim is not clear as the facts acknowledged earlier, but the amount of future claim is not clear as the above) is sought to be preferentially repaid and notarized while issuing and delivering the above bill of exchange to the Defendant. Thus, it is clear that Nonparty 1 issued the above bill of exchange to the Defendant, which is a specific creditor, to fully satisfy the above claim against the Defendant (the above asset status and the obligation against the Defendant, etc.), barring special circumstances, it constitutes a fraudulent act in relation to the Plaintiff, who is in the status of the obligee against Nonparty 1.

Although the issuance of the above promissory note does not increase in the small property of Nonparty 1, it cannot be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, even if the legal act of the obligor does not directly harm the obligee, such legal act of the obligor would be reasonable in light of the legislative intent and legal function of the fraudulent act revocation scheme and the legal function of the obligor. It is clear that, after the issuance of the promissory note by Nonparty 1 and being notarized, the result of the Defendant’s de facto harm to the Plaintiff, who is another obligee after being given the above seizure and assignment order was actually done, it is obvious that the Plaintiff’s existing and future claim reaches the face value of the above promissory note. Although the issuance of the above promissory note did not cause an increase in the Plaintiff’s small property, it cannot be viewed as a fraudulent act. The above issuance of the promissorysory note should not be seen as having been done with priority over the issuance of the above promissory note, that is, if it is closely related to the obligor’s legal act to cause the obligee’s damage, it should be acknowledged that the above issuance of the bill was done with the obligee’s intent of the above agreement.

B. Whether the defendant acted in good faith

In order for Nonparty 1 to secure the above claim against Nonparty 1, the Defendant thought that the limit of supply of the Plaintiff’s goods to Nonparty 1 was the maximum debt amount. Of the Plaintiff’s claim against Nonparty 1, 391,514, the Plaintiff did not have any other agent’s debt to Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 1 also did not inform the Defendant of the above agent’s debt 1 at the time of issuance of the above bill. According to the fact that Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1’s agent’s real estate held by Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 6, the Defendant did not know that it exceeded the debt amount at the time of Nonparty 1’s issuance of the above bill. Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s real estate held by Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 9 for reasons of Nonparty 1’s non-party 4’s non-party 1’s non-party-party’s non-party-party’s non-party-party’s non-party-party’s non-party-party-1’s non-party-party-1’s non-party-party-party-party 1’s allegation.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Song Heopopopopopon (Presiding Judge)