사해행위취소
All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The grounds for appeal by the Defendants cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance. In light of the evidence submitted in the court of first instance, the fact-finding and the judgment of the court of first instance
Therefore, the reasoning of this court's judgment is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts to be added as stated in the following 2.1. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion was that the Plaintiff established a pledge on the facilities installed by E, a primary debtor, as a loan from the Plaintiff pursuant to the loan agreement dated October 15, 2015 (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”), but the Plaintiff failed to take such measures, thereby failing to recover the claim from E, and D, a joint guarantor, bears the obligation.
Ultimately, since the plaintiff could not recover his claim because he did not secure a security, D, a joint and several surety, is exempted from liability for the plaintiff pursuant to Article 485 of the Civil Code, and there is no preserved claim of the plaintiff.
B. Determination 1) The guarantor is a person who has a legitimate interest in the repayment of the obligation of the principal debtor and has a statutory subrogation right to subrogate the creditor as a matter of course due to the performance of the obligation. Thus, in a case where the creditor has lost or reduced the security by intention or negligence, barring any other special circumstances, the guarantor's subrogation right shall be infringed, and the joint guarantor may demand the discharge pursuant to Article 485 of the Civil Act to the extent that he is not able to receive reimbursement due to the loss or reduction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da1013, Jan. 21, 200). According to the above evidence, the circumstance under Article 6 (1) and (2) of the loan agreement of this case is acknowledged to have agreed to set a pledge for the plaintiff at the facilities to be installed as the Plaintiff's loan.
However, the evidence presented by the Defendants alone is alone the Plaintiff.