Women's Assistance2012 Gohap470 ( October 22, 2012)

Since the Defendants did not seem to have in collusion with other creditors, it cannot be viewed as a fraudulent act.

It is insufficient to recognize that the transfer of claims to the Defendants with the intent to repay debts falls short of legitimacy or reasonableness in the economic purpose or the means of realization thereof, and that there was collusion among the Defendants to harm other creditors, such as the Plaintiff, etc., so it cannot be viewed as a fraudulent act.

2012Na86613 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

Yellow AA et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Gahap470 decided September 2, 2012

March 14, 2013

April 4, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

On February 24, 2010 between HongB and Defendant YellowA, the agreement on the assignment of claims and the agreement on the assignment of claims and the agreement on the assignment of claims and the agreement on the assignment of claims and the agreement on the assignment of claims and the agreement on the assignment of claims entered in the same list concluded on the same day between the Defendant and HongB (00) recorded in the separate assignment list of claims concluded on February 24, 2010 shall be revoked. The Defendants expressed to RedB (00) and notify that he/she had transferred each of the above claims, and notified that he/she had transferred the claims and that he/she had given the riverCC as above, or selectively paid the Plaintiff KRW 00 and

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be found to be without dispute between the parties, or found to be the whole entries and arguments of Gap evidence 1 through 5, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 6, and Eul evidence 1 through 3:

A. Plaintiff’s taxation claim

During the period under the Plaintiff’s jurisdiction, the head of the Yangyang Tax Office notified the HongB to pay KRW 000,000,000,000,000,619O and 1/2 of the above-mentioned building sold at voluntary auction on January 5, 2010, and the 11st and half of the above-mentioned building, which were sold at voluntary auction on April 16, 2009, to the HongB, and the RedB did not pay the same, and thus, is in arrears with KRW 00,000,000,000 by the date of the filing of the instant lawsuit.

B. The monetary relationship between redB and the Defendants

on November 30, 2007, HongB drawn up a certificate of loan with a sum of 000 won and 1.5% per month of the interest on the money that he had previously borrowed from Defendant HongB in the form of a check. In addition, HongB borrowed KRW 000 from Defendant HongD from April 2, 2004 to October 1, 2006, and did not prepare a separate certificate of loan.

(c) The occurrence and assignment of claims for indemnity of redB;

1) On June 11, 2004, redB sold 00 00 m2,569 m2 to Gangnam-si OOB, and on June 11, 2004, Gangnam-si bears some of its loans, etc., but an auction on the said real estate was conducted due to the circumstances such as the creation of a collateral security right, etc., and thus, on February 22, 2010, the amount of KRW 000 was distributed to OOB, and the RedB thereafter acquired a claim for reimbursement against Gangnam around that time.

2) On February 24, 2010, on the ground that monetary transactions, such as the description in the bond transfer contract in the attached list No. 1 of the above indemnity claim, HongB transferred KRW 00,00,00, to Defendant Hwang A, as shown in the bond transfer contract in the attached list No. 2 of the assignment of claims, and notified that he transferred each of the above claims to Gangnam on the same day.

3) The HongB and the Defendants filed a lawsuit with the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch Branch 20107) Gohap2881 as the Plaintiff was unable to receive the above claim for reimbursement from the Gangnam. On July 15, 2011, the court rendered a judgment ordering the HongB to pay 00 won (excluding the amount calculated by subtracting 000 won from the above 000 won as the person who was liable to return the down payment and the intermediate payment) with the recourse, and on the ground that the HongB transferred the above claim to the Defendants, the Gangnam had the obligation to pay 00 won to the Defendant Yellow and 000 won for the remainder of the 00 won and the delay damages for each of the above amounts. The judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

(d) the status of the assets of the redB;

On February 24, 2010, HongB had positive property at the time of transferring its claim to the Defendants, and there was no particular property such as real estate, in addition to the claim for indemnity of KRW 743,934,561, as well as the claim for indemnity of KRW 743,934,561.

2. Both claims and judgment

A. The assertion

The Plaintiff had a tax claim amounting to KRW 000,000 against HongB. However, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the claim for reimbursement against KangCC to the Defendants, such as the statement in the attached table of assignment of claims, in excess of the obligation owed by HongB, constitutes a fraudulent act in collusion with the general creditors, and thus constitutes a fraudulent act. Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that, even before the Plaintiff’s tax claim was established, the Plaintiff was holding a claim for a loan against HongB, and that HongB was transferred the claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff in lieu of the repayment, and thus, it does not constitute a fraudulent act.

B. Determination

1) As a matter of course, a creditor’s right to seek reimbursement of an obligation is not obstructed due to the existence of another creditor, and the debtor is also unable to refuse to perform the obligation on the ground that other creditors are liable to perform the obligation according to the principal place of the obligation. Thus, even in cases where the debtor’s joint security is reduced by paying the obligation to a specific creditor under excess of the obligation, such performance does not constitute a fraudulent act unless the debtor, in collusion with some creditors, has an intent to harm other creditors, and in principle, transfers other monetary claims instead of performing the existing monetary obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da1205, Jun. 24, 2003). The same applies to cases where the debtor transfers the obligation to other creditors instead of performing the obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da1205, Jun. 24, 2003). Such an act of collusion should be proved by the claimant as a fraudulent act, and it should be determined by the circumstance that the debtor and the obligor, as a subjective element in general revocation litigation, and circumstances where the obligor and the obligor’s joint obligee’s lack or lack of the amount of obligation.

2) 살피건대， 홍BB이 2010. 2. 24. 피고들에게 별지 채권양도 목록 기재와 같이 채권을 양도할 당시 강CC에 대한 구상금 채권을 제외하고는 별다른 재산이 없었고， 피고 황AA은 그의 동서， 피고 전DD은 그의 처남으로 이들과 친인척 관계인 사실은 인정되나， 한편 앞서 본 기초사실로부터 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정， 즉 ① 피고 황OO은 2007. 11. 30. 홍BB에게 00000 원을 수표로 지급하고 위 돈에 기존에 대여했다는 돈을 합하여 홍BB으로부터 차용금액을 00000 원， 이자를 월 1.5% 로 하는 차용증을 교부받았는데， 위 차용증이 당사자 사이에 허위로 작성되었다고 볼 만한 증거가 없을 뿐만 아니라， 당시 홍BB은 OO시 OO동 산00000 임야 3，619㎡ 등의 재산을 소유하고 있어 그로부터 약 2년 5개월 뒤인 2010. 4. 30.을 납부가한으로 한 조세채무를 부담하여 채무초과의 상태에 이를 것을 예상하고 사실과 다른 내용의 차용증을 작성해 준 것으로 보이지는 않는 점，②피고 황AA이 비록 홍BB의 동서 이기는 하나 그로부터 별다른 담보도 제공받지 아니하고 돈을 대여해 주었고，이후 정상적으로 이자를 지급받지도 못한 점에 비추어 월 1.5%의 이자가 과도한 것으로 단정할 수는 없는 점，③ 피고 전DD은2004. 4. 2.부터 2006. 10. 1.까지 홍BB 내지 그 가 지정하는 자의 계좌로 수천만 원 상당의 돈을 입금하여 합계 0000 원을 송금 하였는데， 비록 차용금액과 이자 등을 기재한 차용증이 없기는 하나， 수년간 담보도 제공받지 않은 상태에서 2억 700만 원을 이자도 없이 대여해 주었다고 보기는 어렵고，오히려 피고 황AA이 홍BB에게 돈을 대여하기 전부터 수사로 돈을 송금해 주었고，홍BB으로부터 별도로 이자를 지급받은 적도 없었던 점에 비추어 친인척인 사정을 고려하여 명시적인 차용증을 작성하지 않았을 뿐 피고 황AA과 같은 정도의 이자를 약정했을 것으로 보는 것이 거래관념에도 부합하는 점，④ 원고는 피고들이 홍BB에게 위와 같이 송금한 돈이 기존에 차용한 돈을 되갚은 것일 수도 있다면서 피고들이 홍종명에 대하여 대여금 채권을 보유하지 않는다고 주장하나 이를 뒷받침할 만한 아무런 증거가 없는 점，⑤ 피고 황AA의 경우 차용증 작성일인 2007. 11. 30.부터 채권양도 일인 2010. 2. 24.까지의 대여 원리금은 000원{ 000원 +000원 x (2 + 87/365) x 18%}이고 피고 전DD의 경우 마지막 송금일인 2006. 10. 1.부터 2010. 2. 24.까지의 대여 원리금은 0000원{ 000원 + 000원 x (3 + 147/365) x 18%}으로 양도된 채권금액인 000 원과 000원을 각 초과하는 점(갑 제13호증의 기재에 의하면， 홍BB이 피고 전DD에게 수시로 금원을 송금하여 그 합계가 13，003，000원인 사실은 인정되나，그 금원이 전부 차용금의 원금에 충당되었다고 보더라도 피고 전DD의 대여 원리금은 000원을 초과한다)，⑥ 홍BB은 피고들에게 위와 같이 차용한 돈에 대하여 이자를 지급하지 못하고 다른 담보도 제공하지 못하고 있던 중 2010. 2. 22. 강CC에 대하여 0000원 상당의 구상금 채권을 보유하게 되자 2010. 2. 24. 그 중 일부 인 000원에 대하여만 피고들에게 채권을 양도한 점，⑦ 피고들은 위와 같이 채권을 양도받았으나 임의변제를 받지 못하자 홍BB과 함께 원고가 되어 강CC을 상대로 구상금 청구의 소를 제기하여 양도받은 금액 전부에 대하여 승소 판결을 받았고，위 판결이 그대로 확정된 점(위 소송에서 강CC은 다양한 법적 주장을 하였는바，피고들로서도 승소를 장담하기 어려웠던 것으로 보인다)，⑧ 피고들이 승소하기는 하였으나 강CC로부터 거의 판결금을 수령하고 있지 못한 점，⑨ 피고들이 홍BB과 친인척 관계이기는 하나 홍BB의 체납사실 내지 채무초과 상태를 알 정도로 긴밀하고 특별한 관계에 있었다고 볼 자료도 없어 피고들이 홍BB의 체납사실이나 채무초과 상태를 알고 통모하여 채권양도를 받았음을 인정할 아무런 증거가 없는 점 등을 종합하면，앞서 본 인정사실만으로는 홍BB이 피고들에게 채무변제의 의사로 채권을 양도한 것이 경제적 목적이나 그 실현 수단에 있어 정당성이나 상당성이 결여되고，나아가 홍OOO과 피고들 사이에 원고 등 다른 채권자를 해한다는 통모가 있었다는 점을 인정하기 부족하고， 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the HongB transferred its claim to the Defendants as shown in the separate sheet of assignment of claims is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed in its entirety. It is so decided as per Disposition.