beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against Defendant A is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
Defendant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. The ground of appeal No. 1 requires that, in principle, a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation was created prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, at the time of such fraudulent act, there has already been legal relations that form the basis for the establishment of a claim, and the claim has already been established in the near future by such legal relations. In the near future, where a claim has been created with its probability realized in the near future, such claim may also become a preserved claim by the obligee’
Here, a high probability about the establishment of a claim should be determined objectively by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the content of basic legal relations between the creditor and the debtor, the debtor's property status and details of change, the frequency in which claims occur in such status, and the degree of awareness of the general public.
(2) The Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity was established on January 16, 2012, since the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity was established on February 9, 2012, based on the facts as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court deemed that, at the time of entering into each of the instant gift contracts with the Defendants, C had already entered into each of the instant guarantee insurance contracts, and E and D companies, the primary debtor of each of the instant guarantee insurance contracts, have deteriorated their financial status and have been under considerable pressure. In short, six months have not elapsed since the date of each of the instant gift contracts, which was later than six months after the date of each of the instant gift contracts, the payment of promissory notes was delayed, and the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity was established on February 9, 2012.