This is not the only class of accidental-but-plausible transactions. Why not just use "reason to believe the payment is valid" directly rather than singling out creditors?
What circumstance do you have in mind in which the person receiving the transaction would A) have reason to believe the payment is valid, B) not be considered a “creditor”?
One could have a reasonable belief that the payment was intended as a gift, in which case the recipient would not necessarily be a "creditor" but there is still no reason for them to believe that the payment was invalid.