[1] In a case where the debtor's property act does not cause a decrease in the whole property, whether it is a fraudulent act subject to the creditor's right of revocation (negative)

[2] In a case where a remittance is made to another person's deposit account, whether the remittance alone can be readily concluded as a fraudulent act that causes a substantial decrease in the remitter's whole property (negative)

[1] Article 406 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 406 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 80Da1403 Decided May 25, 1982 (Gong1982, 594) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861 Decided July 26, 2012 (Gong2012Ha, 1495) Supreme Court Decision 201Da82667 Decided October 11, 2012

Korea

Defendant (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Kim Ho-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Na17541 decided August 14, 2014

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The fraudulent act subject to creditor's right of revocation is a debtor's property juristic act that causes reduction of the debtor's whole property as a matter of principle. Thus, even if the debtor's property juristic act does not cause reduction of the debtor's whole property, it cannot be considered a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1403 delivered on May 25, 1982, etc.).

In addition, in cases of remitting money to another person’s deposit account by transferring money, etc., the remittance may be based on a variety of legal causes, and it cannot be readily concluded that the remittance is a fraudulent act that causes the actual decrease of the remitter’s whole property with the sole legal cause (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012; 201Da82667, Oct. 11, 2012).

2. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) it is reasonable to deem that an agreement was made between the Nonparty and the Defendant on the storage and use of the money transferred by the Nonparty to each of the instant accounts in the name of the Defendant in relation to the money transferred by the Nonparty to the Defendant’s new bank account in order to use the Defendant’s deposit account in the financial transactions necessary for business, and that the transfer of KRW 46,680,000 in total from the Defendant’s new bank account several times to the Defendant’s name, the spouse, the Nonghyup Bank, the Agricultural Cooperative, and the New Bank account (hereinafter “instant transfer”); and (b) the Nonparty and the Defendant committed a fraudulent act in relation to the Nonparty’s general creditor.

3. However, if each of the accounts of this case was used by the Nonparty under the Defendant’s consent or understanding for the management of funds related to the business of the Nonparty, such as the fact-finding and determination by the lower court, it cannot be readily concluded that the transfer of funds to each of the accounts of this case under the Defendant’s name was a fraudulent act causing substantial decrease in the Nonparty’s assets, without examining the specific legal grounds for the use relationship of each of the accounts of this case and transferred money and the transfer act

Therefore, in addition to the content of the agreement on the use of each of the instant accounts and the right to use the money deposited in each of the instant accounts between the Nonparty and the Defendant, the lower court specifically deliberated on the details of the transfer process and purpose thereof, the timing and amount of the transfer money’s authorization, withdrawal, and the use thereof, including whether the transferred money was used for the Nonparty’s business fund or its creditors, and determined whether the transfer of this case by using each of the instant accounts constitutes a fraudulent act.

4. Nevertheless, the lower court, on the sole basis of the circumstance that the Nonparty transferred money to each of the instant accounts in the name of the Defendant, concluded that the instant transfer act constitutes a fraudulent act subject to the obligee’s right of revocation. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on a fraudulent act, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting

5. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)