사해행위취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part that was used in accordance with the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. On the 4th day of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 4th day of the 12th day of the judgment “ from K Union” shall be “ from H Association”.
5 pages 9 of the judgment of the first instance court "Nos. 1 to 3", "Nos. 1 to 4 (including paper numbers)" and "part of witness C of this court".
The 5th day of the first instance judgment "G" shall be deemed to be "E".
6th to 8th of the first instance judgment are as follows.
④ The Defendant asserted that he paid KRW 45 million out of the purchase price in cash (the Defendant submitted to the first instance court that he/she paid KRW 45 million in cash to C as evidence of his/her payment to the first instance court (Evidence 3), and that he/she raised the same assertion in this court (the preparatory document dated January 29, 2019). From the preparatory document dated August 5, 2019, he/she must pay KRW 15 million in the name of N (C’s birth), from the account under the name of L (the Defendant’s birth), on January 10, 2018, from the account under the name of L to the name of N to the account under his/her name of 15 million in cash, and from January 10, 2018, he/she remitted KRW 15 million to the 1.4 million in the name of his/her husband, as requested by the EB on January 16, 2018.
I argued that "the case was".
However, in light of the following circumstances, the above argument on the grounds of the Defendant’s payment of the purchase price is difficult to believe, and rather it is rather difficult to conclude that the Defendant’s payment is not a normal sales contract.
The grounds for the Defendant’s change of the above assertion are difficult to understand the content in itself, and further, as seen in the above assertion, the date and time of the monetary transaction was made around January 9, 2018, and the duplicate of the complaint in this case was served on April 2, 2018, which was 3 months after the said remittance from January 2018.
(b) On the other hand, according to the statements in Section B 4-1 and Section B-2, each entry is made from L's account on January 9, 2018.